But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.

So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible. — 3017amen

It all comes down to the axiom of infinity in ZFC, it says a set with a greater than finite number of object in it actually exists. That's just bullshit.

Repeating the same error does not alleviate that error. — Kenosha Kid

I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account.

Then I allowed for the evidence for/against the proposition that the universe is a creation - resulting in a 95% chance that the universe is a creation.

Maybe I missed out some evidence?

Then God is screwed. — Kenosha Kid

God is timeless and finite.

How do you get from "at least one reason must be outside of time" to "there is only one reason outside of time and it is the first cause"? — Michael

Causality (or anything similar) can only form a pyramid shape with the first cause at the top and everything else caused by it building out the pyramid below.

So if causality (or anything similar) exists outside of time that implies a single first cause.

If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.

Why? Does the intelligent "first cause" need an environment that is life supporting? If not then why must the "second cause"? — Michael

The first cause has to be timeless and uncreated, yet capable of change. Nothing can come before it logically or temporally so it cannot have a fine-tuned environment.

How would the first cause create an intelligent 2nd cause? The only way to do it is evolution and that requires a fine tuned environment.

A hypothesis that requires two tests of equal importance, only one of which is completed, might be said to have a probability of 50%. The God hypothesis has been examined for millenia, tested in many ways, compared to evidence, and can be well said to have negligible probability. — Kenosha Kid

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is the universe a creation?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 25% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%
7. Aquinas 3rd argument, etc...

The inflaton field can be eternal, and can have yielded an infinity of universes via quantum superposition. Some models do not even require superposition, only local collapse of the field's metastable state. — Kenosha Kid

Nothing can be eternal - infinity is complete bullshit.

A man in an alley pulls you aside. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. "Come in to my home, I will give you a thousand dollars." Technically the probability of him giving you a thousand dollars is nonzero. But, in practical terms, you know he will not.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt just in case. You go in, he smacks you over the head, takes your new wallet, and drags you outside. Next day you see him again. And this happens every day for the rest of your life. At what point can you be quite certain that a crazy guy who is notoriously full of crap and who appears to do more harm that good is telling you something that is untrue?

That's how I know the claim of a teleological universal origin made by creationists can be dismissed as having at best negligible likelihood. That and the fact nature herself has given me every opportunity to observe that she just doesn't work that way. — Kenosha Kid

Sorry - you have lost me there.

I don't think there is no way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?) — 3017amen

I think eternity is impossible; it's a form of infinity. So even without the BB, the universe would require a start in time.

These are problematic premises that need further support (re. 4. the problematic part is "nothing cause it or comes logically before it"). — Michael

Re 4, Making the ‘can’t get something from nothing’ assumption leads to the conclusion that something permanent must exist - if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence - but nothing can exist permanently in time.

This argument, along with the causality argument and the proof of the start of time, point to a timeless first cause - a permanent thing outside of all forms of time, that was somehow the root cause of the start of time and everything else.

There can be nothing sequentially or logically prior to the timeless first cause - the word ‘before’ only applies to objects within time. So there can be no cause, reason, explanation for the first cause - it has permanent, uncreated, existence.

The first cause is synonymous with ‘something’ in the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. So this question is not applicable - the first cause does not have a ‘why’ property.

Perhaps a good way to answer the question is that: something must have permanent, uncaused existence outside time so there can be no reason for such a thing’s existence.

Re 5, I feel science (and maths/computing) is largely supportive of the conclusion that true randomness is impossible. I feel in the few occasions that science points to random behaviour, it is merely our lack of understanding of the cause of the seemingly random behaviour that is the problem. There seems to be no substitute for causality when it comes to actually effecting physical change in the universe.

Why? You don't seem to have a problem with an intelligent first cause just existing without any explanation, so why is it a problem for an unintelligent first cause to be responsible for the creation of an intelligent "second cause"? — Michael

The intelligent "second cause" needs an environment that is life supporting. So its environment must be fine tuned by the first cause.

You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification. — jorndoe

You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

Can you set out the premises that allow you to conclude that the first cause must be intelligent? — Michael

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
4. The thing that caused [3] is outside time - nothing caused it or comes logically before it
5. The reason in [3] is not purely random (random does not seem to be possible)
6. The thing that caused the first reason therefore acted in a self-driven, deliberate manner
7. Only intelligent things act in a self-driven, deliberate manner (automons are created so cannot be the first cause).

You said that the first-cause must be intelligent because the universe is fine-tuned. But if something like a demiurge is responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe then this only suggests that the demiurge is intelligent. The first-cause might be unintelligent. — Michael

If the demiurge was created, he was created directly or indirectly by the first cause and that would require intelligence.

If the demiurge evolved somehow, then the universe must be such that it supports evolution. That would require fine tuning of the universe - which would be caused by the first cause, implying an intelligent first cause.

Furthermore, this allows for multiple reasons that are outside of time. What if they're all jointly responsible for the creation of the physical world? Which one is "God"? Or what if just one "timeless reason" is responsible for the creation of the physical world (or the demiurge) but that it itself isn't a first-cause? — Michael

Does causality (or something like it) apply outside time somehow?

- If yes, then all the reasons outside time are caused by a common first reason/cause.

- If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.

Why would an unintelligent first cause unintentionally creating time and space count as "something from nothing" but an intelligent first cause intentionally creating time and space not count as "something from nothing"? — Michael

My argument is that the first cause is not a random act, therefore it is a deliberate act - it has to be caused by something self-driven, self-motivated, IE intelligent. It cannot be some dumb, natural process as all dumb, natural processes have causes - so none of them can be the first cause.

Even granting the fine-tuning of the universe, it doesn't follow that the first cause is the thing responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe. Gnosticism for example believes in the Monad as the first cause and a separate demiurge with its subordinate archons as being responsible for fashioning the physical world. — Michael

But the Monad is the first cause and is so responsible for the existence of the demiurge. So the first cause is indirectly responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe (obviously the first cause is indirectly responsible for everything in the universe).

By "like" I meant "similar to". It might be that the first cause is just some impersonal "event" that without any intention or intelligence or will happened to create time, space, energy, etc. — Michael

The first cause obviously has no cause, but it must cause the first effect. I do not believe in random - my argument is that random would be something from nothing in informational terms - impossible. We can only do pseudo-random with maths and computers and pseudo-random has a cause.

If the above is correct then the first cause is not a random act. Now it can't be caused or influenced by anything - so that seems just to leave a deliberate act as the only possibility.

But to be fair, I acknowledge that the main thrust of my 'the first cause is intelligent' argument comes from separate arguments that we have discussed since the OP was posted - IE fine tuning, the start of time, the universe is not in equilibrium. Things have got a little muddled.

Benevolent is a separate argument I did not mention. It assumes the first cause is intelligent. Then:

Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes evil
Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good punishes evi
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes Good
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good rewards Good

This argument applies to all intelligent entities (including the higher animals, any aliens, artificial intelligences and any gods) - everything is constrained to be good.

Even accepting this, how do you get from "there is a first cause" to "God exists"? You're missing a premise, and also a definition of "God". Perhaps by "God" you just mean "the first cause"? So long as you don't then start sneaking in certain other properties like "being conscious", "having a will", "being all-powerful", "being all-knowing", etc. then you might have some ground to stand on. But then if it turns out that this "first cause" is just some impersonal thing like a quantum fluctuation of energy then what's the rationale for calling it "God"? It's a loaded term with so much extraneous baggage that it has no place in your argument accept as a dishonest attempt to prove something like Christianity. — Michael

I gave my definition of God here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/426361

The first cause is synonymous with God.

Quantum fluctuations don't fluctuate outside of time and the first cause must be timeless. Quantum fluctuations also respect the conservation of energy. They are also a fluctuation of a pre-existing field - they are not 'something from nothing'. Also, they are tiny so to all intense and purposes, they are causally inert - cannot be the source of the vast quantities of matter in the universe.

The extensive signs of fine tuning for life in the universe is one reason I think the first cause must be intelligent.

Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. — Kenosha Kid

How do you know these obvious and abundant signs of fine tuning are not teleological in nature?

The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless. — Kenosha Kid

Eternal Inflation theory does not rule out the need for a first cause - it explicitly requires a first cause - the anti-gravity material that starts off inflation has to come from somewhere.

Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular. — Kenosha Kid

But the probability of the universe being a creation is rather high (its either a creation or not - that's 50% / 50% - plus all the other abundant signs that it was created - start of time, big bang, universe not in equilibrium, argument from causality, Aquinas's 3rd argument) and the probability of the fine tuning for life happening by accident is incredibly low. GO FIGURE.

This is an alternative way of looking at the same problem:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

So there has to be one concrete reason (the first cause) outside time. That reason must be uncaused.

What's the alternative to "concrete" first cause? Is there another kind of cause we should be worried about? — TheMadFool

There appears to be no alternative - causality forms a pyramid-like structure in time, with the first cause at the tip of the pyramid and then causes and effects multiply out to form the rest of the pyramid (the base of the pyramid being today. Such a pyramid cannot exist at all without a concrete first cause.

Also, from your statement, If A did not cause B, would D cause E, I could ask what caused A? Either you'll posit a cause for A, in which case an infinite regress results or you'll say A is uncaused and if you do why shouldn't this A be the universe? — TheMadFool

It could be the universe, but the speed of light is an argument against - parts of the universe are causally disconnected from each other (moving apart faster than the speed of light). So it the universe itself was some sort of intelligent entity, then parts of that entity would not be able to effect other parts, suggesting its not a valid entity. But maybe it somehow ignores the speed of light speed limit.

There are no signs of teleological fine-tuning. That is an interpretation that once again assumes the necessity of an intelligent creator, making the argument still circular. — Kenosha Kid

- There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life (see arguments given previously)
- The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote.
- That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high.

There is really nothing circular about this argument: the universe is life supporting by accident or by design - these are only two possibilities - and by accident is exceedingly unlikely.

Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular. — Kenosha Kid

We have the dimension-like degree of freedom that is called time. It has a start. I find the idea that it was started by a random process unlikely. As mentioned true random may not be possible, it would have to be pseudo-random and that would require an underlying cause. And also time looks like it was designed for the purpose of hosting evolution. And also I don't believe any random process that could result in the creation of a dimension-like structure like time - how could some poxy quantum fluctuation ever cause that? Then there is the Big Bang (probable start of time) - it looks a lot like it was intensional - for example the expansion of space is just what is needed to prevent everything collapsing into gravitational equilibrium (one big black hole), thus enabling life. So it seems the start of time was likely a deliberate act caused by an intelligent entity.

Hmmm. Supertasks are not impossible, Achilles can complete his run — Banno

Supertasks are obviously logically impossible - we are talking about performing a greater than finite number of steps in a finite time:

- Finite numbers go on forever, so its not possible for the number of steps to be greater than something that goes on forever
- The process of performing steps is just adding one to the step count; there is no way addition of one can ever produce a non-finite number.

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. — Banno

Causation is matter/energy acting on matter/energy. So causation is just Newton's laws of motion. It is completely scientific and we have masses of empirical evidence to support the fact that causation is universal.

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. — Banno

Causation is indeed complex. But we can abstract out some key details:

1. Causation is matter acting on matter via Newton's laws of motion.
2. All action takes place subject to the speed of light limit, so the cause precedes the effect
3. All empirical evidence indicates that every effect has a cause (at least at macro level, probably at micro level too - I already explained how there is a cause for radioactive decay for example).
4. A cause can cause multiple effects. Each effect in its turn can cause multiple follow on effects
5. So by [4], causation must form a pyramid shape in time, the first cause being at the tip of the pyramid
6. Entropy increasing with time reenforces this view - as causes and effects multiply, things become less organised so entropy increases.

If you look at the picture of the universe:



You can see that it takes on the pyramid shape I was referring to - with the Big Bang - likely the start of time - being the first cause.

Lets cut to the chase though. Do you think that the Big Bang has a cause or was uncaused?

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". — Gnomon

Certainly seems that information is fundamental. A key question is that is information transitory, permanent or a mixture of both? For anything to exist at all in the universe, it seems there must be permanent information associated with it - the first cause is permanent. What about spacetime though? Does it contain permanent information (eternalism) or transitory information (presentism)? It could also be something in-between like growing block theory - information is permanent once created.

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

Nothing in science or philosophy is ultimately either falsifiable nor provable - all our deductions are based on axioms - and those axioms maybe true or false - so we can prove results only subject to our axioms being correct.

I believe that the axiom: 'Everything in time has a cause' is a very strong axiom, one which we live our everyday lives according to. Hence I have a strong conviction that there is a timeless first cause, as this is deducible from the axiom.

I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment? — PoeticUniverse

I mentioned growing block universe as a possible nature of spacetime. I wonder if that model could be used to model timeless existence in some way. So imagine a timeless thing as a brick that has permanent existence but can somehow grow as it timelessly experiences some sort of change.

There is nothing that just "exists for no reason" — Outlander

There has to be.

We can formulate a revised version of Leibniz’s PSR:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

[1] and [2] taken together imply that there must be a thing that has no reason outside of time - the timeless first cause (first reason). This argument points to a minimum of one 'brute fact’ to act as the tip of the pyramid of causality within time. That brute fact must exist outside of time, but also be able to cause the first effect within time (the Big Bang maybe).

Something outside of time can have no cause or reason - there is nothing 'before' it and it has 'always' existed. The existence of such an object is why there is something rather than nothing, but there is of cause no 'why' about it. Without such a permanent fixture, there would be nothing at all in the universe.

The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing — Enai De A Lukal

Time must have a start. The past is either a finite or infinite number of days long. If its infinite, then its longer than any finite number of days. But finite numbers go on forever, so that's impossible.

The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.

So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.

Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up. — Outlander

I cannot say everything was created. Spacetime has a start - looks like the Big Bang probably. Matter/energy either entered spacetime at that point or was somehow created in the Big Bang. If it was the second, then some precursor matter/energy must have been inserted into spacetime as the trigger for the creation of the rest of the matter/energy. So there is something permanent outside spacetime that somehow 'caused' the Big Bang.

It appears that the 'timeless realm' either surrounds and encompasses spacetime or is causally connected to spacetime - it must be as it is the cause of spacetime.

Every effect in time has a cause, the Big Bang is in time, so it must have a cause. But logically one cause must be external to the seemingly transitory spacetime - it has a start. That cause must be timeless and permanent - it the root cause of causality - the cause of the start of time - the cause of all motion in the universe.

And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point. — Kenosha Kid

I doubt the first cause can be a random process:

- The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence
- The start of time suggests intelligence
- I'm not convinced true random is possible. That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. Anything pseudo-random has a cause, so it does not qualify as a first cause.

That doesn't demonstrate that there can't be an infinity of causes. In fact if the (n+1)th cause can't exist without the nth cause there should be a infinity of causes — TheMadFool

A causes B. B causes C. D causes E.

If A did not cause B, would D cause E?

Hence we reach the conclusion that any causal regress must have a concrete first cause - they just can't stretch back infinitely.

Well, why can't that "something" be the universe itself? Why do you have to introduce a nth cause (god) if one takes the universe to the bet (n+1)th cause? — TheMadFool

It could possibly be that the 'God' I refer to is somehow synonymous with the universe itself - the universe itself is somehow self-driven and capable of intelligent action. But personally, I think a distinct, intelligent entity is more likely.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Can you define what you mean by 'harmony'?

Its an interesting area. We used to maybe growl to indicate unhappiness and grunt to indicate happiness. We have a common agreement on what makes use happy and sad. Maybe this became enriched somehow to form the first proto-language?

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...

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.

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.

The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though. — jorndoe

If you have read the thread, you would see that logic has taken us to the conclusion that something permanent, external to time, somehow caused time. That implies that change without time - within the state of timelessness that 'pre-existed' (or maybe enclosed) our universe - must be possible. I admit I am stumped on exactly how.

The timeless thing, the first cause, must be able to effect change within spacetime - start the Big Bang or whatever - the universe requires a concrete start, or it is nothing.

So the timeless thing must be self-driven in some manner, IE intelligent.

But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense). — jorndoe

We only know one state of existence - spacetime. You are ruling out all the other possible states of existence - things not involving space or time even maybe - on what evidence?

Firstly, the contents of argument tells me it's deductive - first cause arguments usually are - but then your conclusion has an obvious inductive character given away by the phrase "almost certainly" — TheMadFool

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'.

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?

We can see Nature and that it Rules. It sent a plague of locusts in Africa that blotted out the sun, 100 degrees F in Siberia, a killer virus, and even Trump…

If you want an Invisible Person to rule, He needs to conform to exactly what Nature does, which doesn't really add anything to Nature's natural goings on — PoeticUniverse

Hello Poetic! My opinion is that the universe is not perfect, but optimal given the constraints that the (probable) creator of the universe was working under.

As life, society and technology evolves, our environment tends towards optimal.

The creator of the universe (I'm almost certain there is one) was benevolent - he foresaw that we would reach an optimal state of existence - so he went ahead and created the universe. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances.

Yet, the timeless needs be everything, which thus has to be all-at-once and ever, such as in a superposition — PoeticUniverse

I'm not sure about superposition - how can something be more than one position at the same time? I think matter could be purely a wave - spread out at times so it seems its in multiple positions - collapsed to a small wave when we measure it.

Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. If it exists, all we know is it not spacetime - not much to go on.

It doesn't seem that way to me. What's to counter? — Isaac

Well the idea is you explain why it doesn't seem that way to you... and we sort of debate it - rhetoric - as the ancient greek philosophers called it - this is the purpose of The Philosophy Forum.

Have you ever heard the term 'dipolar' God? Theoretical physicist Davies argues that in his book the Mind of God. It combines logical necessity with contingency. An unchanging timeless being (required for the notion of what caused the Big Bang/what was God doing prior to it) combined with openness and freedom of say, QM or quantum physics (double slit experiment, etc.). — 3017amen

We certainly need something like that. Timelessness it seems must have something of a non-sequential nature about it.

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. I prefer to think as matter as a spread out wave of energy that collapses to a very small wave when we measure it. Something being in two places at the same time - no way is that possible is my gut reaction.

One problem is timelessness could be absolutely anything. All we can say it is not spacetime. Not much to go on :(

Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."

If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."

The "This we all call God" was gratuitous, self-serving, and frankly, silly — Frank Apisa

You have to put yourself in the mind of Thomas - this was before the discovery of biological evolution and they still thought the earth was the centre of the universe. I think he made very reasonable conclusions with the amount of evidence he was working with.

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen

Folding timelessness and temporality into one entity is quite a trick - can you expand?

Timelessness is where I am stuck. The only sort of change we are aware of is within spacetime. But spacetime having a start implies timelessness and also implies a cause of the start of time. But how can something be caused by something external to time? - Without time, how can change take place?

So it seems timelessness must be able to somehow allow change. Some type of change that is not the usual type that we are used to within spacetime.

So timelessness seems to be a logical requirement, but what exactly could it be?

It has puzzled philosophers for 1000s of years. The best description I heard was 'the eternal now' - imagine all of the events in your life somehow experienced in one go.

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen

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

Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent. — 3017amen

Yes, there must be something self-powered, IE intelligent in the universe. If you look at all natural systems that are purely composed of dumb objects, then they always end up in equilibrium (even orbits decay). For a system to stay out of equilibrium permanently as our universe has, it must have some element of self-power - self-determination - something intelligent must have permanent existence. But nothing permanent can exist in time.

So this argument based on equilibrium also points to a timeless first cause.

And your counter argument?

I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural. — Gnomon

What is nature though? Is it the stuff in spacetime? Then anything beyond might class as super-natural.

Its interesting to think that we are aware of one possible reality; that of spacetime. We have no idea how many other forms of reality could be out there - things completely different from spacetime that are no time and no distance from our universe.

So super-natural I agree we cannot rule out.

I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way. :smile: — Gnomon

I can't disprove the existence of a multiverse. It might exist. There is no compelling evidence for or against a multiverse. It is a unscientific concept - how are we meant to collect empirical evidence for something causally disconnected from our universe?

If there is a multiverse, my guess is it all supports life and was all caused somehow by the timeless first cause.

Focus on this. Where exactly is the cause? I buy some dynamite to blast an old tree stump out of the ground: the dynamite works. What caused it to explode? — tim wood

1. The interaction of the match on the matchbox causes friction - the effect is combustion.
2. The interaction of the match on the fuse causes combustion of the fuse.
3. The combustion of the fuse ignites the explosive, causing an explosion.

Causality is quite complex I think: there are macro-level and micro-level causes and effects. Some effects are instantaneous whereas others have a prolonged duration.

But causality is always matter/energy acting on matter/energy - fundamentally a very scientific principle.

So an event is not something that happens? — tim wood

Events happen but they are not an effects (they might be coincidental with effects, but generally they are not).

An effect is matter/energy interacting with matter/energy.

Take a null sort of universe for example - no matter/energy but 4d spacetime. Its full of events yet there are no effects.

So things happen that are not caused, yes? — tim wood

No. The cause of the movement past the balls was the cue hitting the (now) moving ball.

An effect is some force applying to matter/energy. An event is a spacetime co-ordinate.

In general an event is not an effect.