Do you have knowledge of what exists outside the universe? — 3017amen

No one does. Although some might pretend to do so.

No one does. Although some might pretend to do so. — A Seagull

Time has a start. So there is a state of existence without time. This state must of somehow 'caused' the start of time. I fail to see what problem you have with regards to this deduction? It seems quite reasonable to me.

But we have knowledge of what empirically exists as it were, enough to provide clues, through induction, that more likely than not, an intelligent cause is/was at work. But that's just science. Metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science, are a few of many other domains that provide clues inferring causation.

No matter how you think of it, causation, by definition, is metaphysical, is it not?

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

Ok.

1. Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past?

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?

1. Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes extending into the past? — TheMadFool

Each chain of causes requires a concrete start - the first cause causes the second cause - the second cause doe not exist if it is not caused by the first cause. The nth+1 cause cannot exist if the nth cause does not. So causality without a first cause (IE infinite causality) cannot exist - there is nothing to make any of it concrete.

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

I think that everything in time has a cause. Something must be uncaused about the universe (IE external to time) - else there would be nothing.

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.

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...

Hey - haven't seen your stuff in a while. I enjoy your little endeavors - helps lighten the mood with all this back & forth that never gets anywhere.

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.

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?

Possibly, we don't see many in my neck of the woods. They sure have lots of em in yours though. — Kenosha Kid

Strange as I thought you'd be accustomed to having rings run around you?

(ps I don't mean it! Just a joke. Interesting conversation)

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

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
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.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. — Frank Apisa

Why? Knowledge is interesting!

Nothing is certain in this world, so we must resort to probability as our only hope for true knowledge. I find it strange that you will not at least hazard a guess on this important issue.

Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. — Devans99

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.

We’ve approached the Mystery, and have found
That Beginnings can’t be, so what goes round
Must be all things, for there’s no point to impart
A design; so drink—to naught more we’re bound!

ps I don't mean it! Just a joke. — Devans99

It's a good one too! I'm cool with banter, don't worry.

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

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.

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?

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

I currently have doubts about both presentism and eternalism. The first is not compatible with the start of time or special relativity. The second has us co-eternal with the dinosaurs. I am wondering if growing block theory (past and present real, future under continual construction) might be closer to the truth.

The growing block theory of time gives us an eternal presence in the universe - which is nice. Could we somehow experience that eternal presence after death? Seems unlikely, but we can't rule it out. I can think of at least one way...

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

My daemon, Marcus Tullius Cicero, keeps muttering Ignoratio Elenchi. Well, he says he's my daemon, anyhow.

He also says "Believe or disbelieve, and be silent." He speaks English when I can't think of the Latin.

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

I think that any mechanism of a purely dumb nature cannot be the first cause - it would have to initiate an action by its own accord - and no dumb mechanism can do that - it seems it has to be something self-motivated - intelligent.

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

It's possible that the first cause is able effect causality without being part of causality.

I imagine something intelligent - it would want information to exercise its intelligence upon. It might first manufacture dumb objects - pool tables and such. The objects would get more complex maybe. If we take the argument to the ultimate conclusion, then the ultimate toy for an intelligent being would be its own, life supporting, universe.

How the above story takes place 'timelessly' is a major issue. Timeless existence must support change but the only type of change we know of is within time. This is the issue I am roadblocked on.

Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments? — jorndoe

Really, you mean you were able to answer those questions, where?

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

But the point is, if timelessness is eternity, which we cannot figure out, and if temporal time is an illusion ( which has been successfully argued before) , either one becomes a mystery. And so what's the difference; we cannot figure out the phenomenon of time regardless of whether it's temporal or unchanging and timeless.

Yet our Kantian consciousness cries out that ' all events must have a cause'. Why should you care?

My silence is because it's incredibly boring. God is a word, and an essentially meaningless one -- can mean anything you want it to. To say "he/she/it exists" is like asking if ectoplasm exists. These arguments have have been going on for nearly 2000 years, and to think we'll "solve" anything now is ludicrous. If you're new to the question, fine -- but there are more important things to discuss than the "existence" of Shiva, Ba'al, or Yahweh. Who cares?

silence is because it's incredibly boring. God is a word, and an essentially meaningless one -- can mean anything you want it to. — Xtrix

Then why are you contributing to the thread...out of boredom? LOL

Since you are not able to answer the question that speaks volumes already. If I was an atheist I wouldn't even be contributing to this thread because it would be meaningless. It seems obvious that any atheist who bothers to care, has no faith in their belief system.

I'd recommend that you just walk away from the table. It certainly would help your credibility in any case... LOL

Time has a start. So there is a state of existence without time. This state must of somehow 'caused' the start of time. I fail to see what problem you have with regards to this deduction? It seems quite reasonable to me. — Devans99

It seems to me that you are just playing with words.

No matter how you think of it, causation, by definition, is metaphysical, is it not? — 3017amen

What is called 'causation' is just an association of events - as cogently pointed out by Hume.

seems to me that you are just playing with words. — A Seagull

Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James

What is called 'causation' is just an association of events - as cogently pointed out by Hume. — A Seagull

NICE. What causes consciousness? Was it you, or Hume that figured that one out !?

Put in a quarter and try again! Lol

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

Hmmm. Supertasks are not impossible, Achilles can complete his run. See this Stanford article.

Note that the point of this example was to show that causation is more complex than is supposed in the argument presented in the OP. It is only one of many alternate pictures which do not involve a god of one sort or another. The purpose of the example was to help you see that the conclusion only follows if one adopts a narrow understanding of causation.

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

So it sounds like you believe in logical necessity then, no?

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

Please see this post, in which I repeat an obvious argument that shows that "everything has a cause" is neither falsifiable nor provable.

Hence, it is not an empirical claim.

And then this post, which points out that the supposed Principle of Causation is not amongst the laws of thought, except amongst those who seek to use it as you do.

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

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.

Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". But that theory was postulated centuries before the Big Bang theory, so he assumed the world was eternal. And his theory was called PanTheism. We now know it has not existed forever, therefore we must look beyond the BB barrier to sensory knowledge, and logically infer a self-existent source of Enforming Causal power. Hence, the creative entity, whatever it is, must be both Eternal (metaphysical, Ideal) and Temporal (physical, Real). And the modern scientific & philosophical term for such a deity is PanEnDeism, which does not assume any biblical revelation or personal characteristics of the creative Principle. :smile:


Information : Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Information is Fundamental : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

EnFormAction : I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PanEnDeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Spinoza's Substance : God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use.

I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP.