[_ Old Earth _] Everything must have a cause

[logical bob]

It's a standard argument in favour of theism and I've already seen it a number of times on this forum. Everything that happens must have a cause, so what is the cause of the universe? A scientist might say it was the Big Bang, but then what caused the Big Bang? We need God to be the ultimate cause which explains everything else. This is an argument with a long history. It's essentially the second of the Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas.

But what if I then ask what causes God? Clearly nothing causes God. You could say that God is a logical necessity or that he exists outside of space and time or that he is causa sui, self causing. These are all different ways of saying that God doesn't need a cause, he just is.

So to summarise we have:
Starting point: everything must have a cause
Conclusion: something exists which doesn't need a cause.

I can’t be alone in noticing a problem here. The conclusion directly contradicts the starting point. If this argument proves anything, it’s that the starting point is wrong. It’s not the case that everything must have a cause.

Some things just are. Why shouldn't the universe be one of them?

 

[Free]

If that was how the argument went, then it would seem to be a problem. However, I'm certain that the actual, historical argument is that every effect must have a cause. I'll try and get to this tomorrow.

 

[jasoncran]

It's a standard argument in favour of theism and I've already seen it a number of times on this forum. Everything that happens must have a cause, so what is the cause of the universe? A scientist might say it was the Big Bang, but then what caused the Big Bang? We need God to be the ultimate cause which explains everything else. This is an argument with a long history. It's essentially the second of the Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas.

But what if I then ask what causes God? Clearly nothing causes God. You could say that God is a logical necessity or that he exists outside of space and time or that he is causa sui, self causing. These are all different ways of saying that God doesn't need a cause, he just is.

So to summarise we have:
Starting point: everything must have a cause
Conclusion: something exists which doesn't need a cause.

I can’t be alone in noticing a problem here. The conclusion directly contradicts the starting point. If this argument proves anything, it’s that the starting point is wrong. It’s not the case that everything must have a cause.

Some things just are. Why shouldn't the universe be one of them?

that would be a problem as not even dawkins accepts that. it takes the same faith to beleice in the eternal universe that is self existent as it does as an the eternal god.


if the universe is eternal then who or what ordained the laws in which it operates by. How can it say i will operate by this and viola its bound by them.not able to change, nor does.

 

[lordkalvan]

....that would be a problem as not even dawkins accepts that. it takes the same faith to beleice in the eternal universe that is self existent as it does as an the eternal god.


if the universe is eternal then who or what ordained the laws in which it operates by. How can it say i will operate by this and viola its bound by them.not able to change, nor does.

Even granting the initial hypothesis that what we perceive as an effect necessarily requires a cause, there are a number of possible understandings of that cause of which supernatural intervention is only one, for example the cause could be entirely naturalistic. On a slightly different note, the idea that cause A has an effect B depends on a theory of understanding about causal relationships and the explanatory ideas that we bring to them that the existence of the Universe may not be dependent upon.

 

[jasoncran]

then i say what my parents told me, things to pick themselves up. if nothing did it then how is that not saying that toys all on thier own will place themselves in order given enough time?

 

[lordkalvan]

then i say what my parents told me, things to pick themselves up. if nothing did it then how is that not saying that toys all on thier own will place themselves in order given enough time?

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the first case, this provides a naturalistic explanation for how toys are picked up - just as a naturalistic explanation is possible for the origins of our current Universe. In the second, this does not address the possibility that the existence of our current Universe may not be dependent upon causal relationships as we explain and understand them.

 

[jasoncran]

in nut shell everthying came from nothing and that it(the universe) organized its self and will stay organized.

 

[logical bob]

You can't accept the idea that the universe exists and is the way it is without there being a reason you can understand. You say that God is responsible for it.

But why does God exist and why is he the way he is? Can you give a reason for this? I doubt it.

We both accept that there exists something we can't give a reason for. I just reach that point one step before you do.

 

[Brah]

It's a standard argument in favour of theism and I've already seen it a number of times on this forum. Everything that happens must have a cause, so what is the cause of the universe? A scientist might say it was the Big Bang, but then what caused the Big Bang? We need God to be the ultimate cause which explains everything else. This is an argument with a long history. It's essentially the second of the Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas.

But what if I then ask what causes God? Clearly nothing causes God. You could say that God is a logical necessity or that he exists outside of space and time or that he is causa sui, self causing. These are all different ways of saying that God doesn't need a cause, he just is.

So to summarise we have:
Starting point: everything must have a cause
Conclusion: something exists which doesn't need a cause.

I can’t be alone in noticing a problem here. The conclusion directly contradicts the starting point. If this argument proves anything, it’s that the starting point is wrong. It’s not the case that everything must have a cause.

Some things just are. Why shouldn't the universe be one of them?

My answer would be: does a circle have a starting point? (lol answering with a question)

You're answer would be correct if the big bang was the starting point which it may or may not be. The big bang does not necessarily claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old but rather that it has existed in its current form and followed its current laws for roughly that period of time. Really it could be way older and maybe could have no beginning or end (like god...i think). If that was the case would cause and effect have a beginning or end?

 

[TanNinety]

I agree with the gist of your argument. For discussion’s sake let’s consider the following.

Starting point: everything must have a cause
Conclusion: something exists which doesn't need a cause.
…
If this argument proves anything, it’s that the starting point is wrong. It’s not the case that everything must have a cause.

How do we know the starting point is wrong? What if it’s the conclusion that’s faulty? What are your reasons to pick the former to the latter?

Some things just are. Why shouldn't the universe be one of them?

There is scientific inquiry into various hypothesis of how the big bang got started. If we follow, “the universe just isâ€, wouldn’t that be detrimental to the scientific interrogation?

But why does God exist and why is he the way he is? Can you give a reason for this? I doubt it.

But what does that have to do with anything? Let’s say we have a (hypothetical) hypothesis that our universe is the result of a virtual particle which spawned through quantum fluctuation. Our endeavor is to find the correlation between the quantum fluctuation and our current universe. Questions like why and where this virtual particle, though valid, come at a later time. It’s like asking evolution to explain origin of life. Similarly where did God come from is a valid question but has not much relevance to creation of current universe.

We both accept that there exists something we can't give a reason for. I just reach that point one step before you do.

Though I agree with your above statement, I disagree for the reasons why you stop one step before the theist. It’s not because our universe is causeless but we don’t have enough evidence to support only one hypothesis of the several that are out there for its cause.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Yes, you are correct in saying you're not alone in noticing this.

Carl Sagan once said that if everything must have a cause then so must God, and if you propose that God is causeless then why not cut out one step and say the universe is causeless. We don't know what came before the big bang, perhaps as in M theory the universe started by the colliding of two eternal membranes, who knows.

I do, however, find this to be purely hypothetical, and has no basis in reality. We haven't (and probably can't) discern this due to our overwhelming lack of data on the subject.


I'm the first to admit I don't know what caused the universe, because I don't. Nobody does. Scientists have hypotheses but as of yet they're just that, hypotheses. None have evolved into theories yet and I don't suspect them to for quite some time.

The most plausible explanation at the moment is that the universe was a quantum singularity of insufficient radii to break the Planck length, and this would, as implied by the title of the object, be subject to quantum mechanical effects.

The main problem arises when we try to think about non-time. This isn't just the stopping of time, this is the absolute absence of the mere concept of time or causality, thus the question of what 'caused' the universe isn't really a question at all, it's just a false premise. In this way it would make a causative agent (such as God) not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Try to imagine a space where space doesn't exist. You can't, because you're imagining an empty space, but not even that empty space exists, the same applies with non-time.

This is all as of yet unproven, however. We simply don't know. That doesn't mean God did it, it means we don't know. The fact that we don't know what caused the universe is about as much evidence for God as us not knowing what caused the market crash of Venice in 1132 is evidence for a historical reptilian conspiracy to destroy our economics...

 

[Crying Rock]

The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

 

[lordkalvan]

The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

And what is the causal premise? For example, what are the causal premises underlying the spontaneous appearance of alpha, beta and gamma particles in radioactive decay or behind quantum physics?

 

[logical bob]

The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

All the variants of the cosmological argument fall because they make the error of treating the universe as if it were a thing, rather than the collection of all things.

As examples, here are two invalid arguments that make a similar mistake.

All humans have a mother.
Therefore the human race has a mother.

Every painting donated to the gallery was given by a single donor.
The whole collection was donated.
Therefore the whole collection was given by a single donor.

William Lane Craig's fixation on this argument does him no credit if he wants to be taken seriously. Most philosphy students shred it as a warm up exercise in Logic 101. It's had no credible support since about 1800.

 

[Crying Rock]

[quote="Crying Rock":27yvg8mc]The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

All the variants of the cosmological argument fall because they make the error of treating the universe as if it were a thing, rather than the collection of all things.

As examples, here are two invalid arguments that make a similar mistake.

All humans have a mother.
Therefore the human race has a mother.

Every painting donated to the gallery was given by a single donor.
The whole collection was donated.
Therefore the whole collection was given by a single donor.

William Lane Craig's fixation on this argument does him no credit if he wants to be taken seriously. Most philosphy students shred it as a warm up exercise in Logic 101. It's had no credible support since about 1800.[/quote:27yvg8mc]

Please, cite an object that does not have a cause. Quantum physics are fine.

 

[freeway]

"logical bob"
It's a standard argument in favour of theism and I've already seen it a number of times on this forum. Everything that happens must have a cause, so what is the cause of the universe? A scientist might say it was the Big Bang, but then what caused the Big Bang? We need God to be the ultimate cause which explains everything else. This is an argument with a long history. It's essentially the second of the Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas.

Bob, me being a Christian so of course my answers will be my Christian view point. I do believe everything has a cause. Sure lot of the time we misinterpret these causes, and quite often are pasted off as if. I believe yes God created the universe and all that is in it.

But what if I then ask what causes God? Clearly nothing causes God. You could say that God is a logical necessity or that he exists outside of space and time or that he is causa sui, self causing. These are all different ways of saying that God doesn't need a cause, he just is.

God does not have a "cause" God is outside of time, Time as we see it was made for mankind. This time line is for God's dealing with mankind sin and redemption. When that plan is done, and it will be finished at the end of the 1000 reign of Christ. At that time, time will be no more.

So to summarise we have:
Starting point: everything must have a cause
Conclusion: something exists which doesn't need a cause.

The starting point is only the point that we can see, beyond that is purely speculation. The something you talk about is God? God does not need a cause because he his the creator of cause.

I can’t be alone in noticing a problem here. The conclusion directly contradicts the starting point. If this argument proves anything, it’s that the starting point is wrong. It’s not the case that everything must have a cause.

The starting point is what God has allowed us to see.

Some things just are. Why shouldn't the universe be one of them?

because you are assuming that things are just things no rime no reason. but I don't see it that way.

 

[lordkalvan]

Please, cite an object that does not have a cause. Quantum physics are fine.

At best quantum event causality can be considered to be 'probabilistic causality', as Craig counters in his own arguments, but this immediately introduces the concept of accidental causality which obviously undermines the argument for predetermined causality.

 

[logical bob]

[quote="logical bob":2hxz2nwc][quote="Crying Rock":2hxz2nwc]The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

All the variants of the cosmological argument fall because they make the error of treating the universe as if it were a thing, rather than the collection of all things.

As examples, here are two invalid arguments that make a similar mistake.

All humans have a mother.
Therefore the human race has a mother.

Every painting donated to the gallery was given by a single donor.
The whole collection was donated.
Therefore the whole collection was given by a single donor.

William Lane Craig's fixation on this argument does him no credit if he wants to be taken seriously. Most philosphy students shred it as a warm up exercise in Logic 101. It's had no credible support since about 1800.[/quote:2hxz2nwc]

Please, cite an object that does not have a cause. Quantum physics are fine.[/quote:2hxz2nwc]
What lord kalvan said. But you misunderstand me. My point was that the universe isn't an object, it's a collection of objects. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that every object which begins to exist has a cause, it's a big logical jump to say that therefore there is one cause for all those different objects.

 

[Crying Rock]

...My point was that the universe isn't an object, it's a collection of objects. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that every object which begins to exist has a cause, it's a big logical jump to say that therefore there is one cause for all those different objects...

Who proposed that only objects have causes?

Crying Rock wrote:The Kalam cosmological argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note: Whatever begins to exist...

"Begin" is a temporal notion.

Did the Big Bang have a cause? Is it an object or collection of objects? Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

As far as quantum physics go, causality is expressed in probabilities because we don't have instruments with high enough resolution to detect the exact causality. That doesn't prove that quantum particles don't have a cause.

If you don't agree with the Big Bang Theory, then that is a totally different issue and a separate thread should be started, imo.

 

[logical bob]

Who proposed that only objects have causes?

Nobody. You asked for an example of an uncaused object. I said suppose we allow for the sake of argument that all objects have causes...

Did the Big Bang have a cause?

I don't know.

Is it an object or collection of objects?

Or an event?

Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

Probably.

As far as quantum physics go, causality is expressed in probabilities because we don't have instruments with high enough resolution to detect the exact causality. That doesn't prove that quantum particles don't have a cause.

I'm not sure about that. The uncertainty principle isn't about the limitations of instruments. There is a fundamental degree of uncertainty.