Did our universe just pop into existence by its own volition, or was there a first and moving cause which brought it into being?
Is it possible for any effect to exist without a cause? Can we, by the use of reason and logic, come to any conclusions about the origin of the universe?
Further, if the universe owes its existence to a first and moving cause, is it possible to know anything of the attributes of this first cause by observing the evidence available to us in said vast and breathtaking universe?
These are questions that beg consideration. For millennia of recorded history the greatest minds who have ever graced our planet have wrestled with these all-important issues. What can we learn from them?
This thread is dedicated to the discussion and discovery of answers concerning the origin of our universe.
We're going back...to the beginning.
...written by Randy Cofield
randy, you asked,
ReplyDelete"1) In your estimation, is it more reasonable to assume that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or is it more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause?"
A: yes the universe (matter/energy) has a cause - a First Cause (but what caused the first cause...).
2) Is it more reasonable to assume that time is of infinite duration, or to assume that time had a beginning?
A: i don't know. i suppose it's reasonable to say that time started when the First Cause came into existence...
3) If it is more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause, is it more reasonable to assume that this cause was part of the universe, or is it more reasonable to assume that this cause existed apart from the universe which it caused?
A: i don't know. i don't think we can know. many people currently suppose that time starts at the time of the creation of matter - like time, energy and matter were created together.
4) Which is more reasonable to assume: A first and moving cause of all that exists, or an infinite regression of causes?
A: First Cause. but i really can't imagine what created the First Cause. sure we can "get out of" this infinite regression quandry by creating a First Cause, but that seems to me like a "trick" of convenience, used to "solve" this regression problem. so, to avvoid this, let's imagine a First Cause.
5) If it is more reasonable to assume a first and moving cause of all that exists, is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause had a beginning, or is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause has always existed?
A: the universe (matter/energy) has a cause )First Cause). i really don't know, and neither do you, whether "First Cause" has/had a beginning.
6) Is an acorn only potentially an oak tree, or is it actually an oak tree?
A: an acorn is not a tree. given the exact right sequence/combination of conditions it could become a tree. much more likely, thoiugh, it will become squirrel food, or insect food, or mulch/soil on the forest floor.
7) Can an acorn cause itself to change from an acorn to a fully mature oak tree?
A: no
8) If not what causes an acorn to change from a mere seedling to a mighty oak tree?
A: genetics and the right combination of air, soil, light etc...
9) If your response to #8 is “just reactions between matter and chemicals,” what causes these “reactions between mater and chemicals”?
A: ok, one could call it chemical/physical reactions btwn matter. these reactions are governed by "natural laws".
10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?
A: (a)natural laws are inherent properties of matter/energy. (b)because they are natural inherent properties, they do not vary - unless conditions vary.
randy, continuing, you asked,
ReplyDelete11) Did these physical “natural laws” of the universe cause themselves to exist, or are they dependent on a first cause?
A: same as 10. being properties of matter/energy, they are "dependent" on matter/energy. i suppose you could say, since we are supposing First Cause created matter/energy, that these properties were created by First Cause when matter/energy was created.
[somewhere along around here i said, "so if THAT'S what you mean by "god", then sign me up. i love laws like f=ma and so forth. and those are laws i always obey. please, send me to hell if i violate the law of gravity."]
12) Why do you mock religious worship when you, by your own confession, are a religious worshiper?
A: i don't believe that we have established that First Cause is any kind of "conscious entity" or sentient being. BUT, if First Cause is a conscious entity that created matter/energy with these properties or "natural laws, i don't see any reason to assume First Cause created heaven/hell as reward/punishment for anything. those are suspiciously human concepts. but again, i'm not "giving you" the conscious/purposeful First Cause assumption, yet.
13) Is it not reasonable to assume that these “natural laws” that govern and effect change within the universe had their beginning with the universe?
A: i assume natural laws are inherent properties of the matter/energy that have existed ever since the beginning of matter/energy - which as far as we can tell, seems to have occurred 4,500,000,000 years ago in the big bang.
14) If they had a beginning, is it not reasonable to assume that they have a cause?
A: yes
15) Is not the cause greater and more worthy of our fascination than the effect?
A: no. the effects, the actual physical universe and its natural laws are more relevant than their cause.
16) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: i am not "insistent" on a disinterested First Cause, but i don't see any evidence for an interested one. whya re you so insistent on an interested first cause?
17) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules", but i just don't see evidence for other than mere molecules. what evidence do you see for more than mere molecules?
18) By what means does change within the universe take place?
A: by the interaction of matter/energy and natural laws. (i peeked...)
19) Assuming you will remain consistent and answer the above question “by natural laws,” I ask you: Did these “natural laws” cause themselves to exist?
A: already asked and answered, but, again, no.
20) Did the universe have a first and moving cause?
A: yes.
randy, adn finally, you asked,
ReplyDelete21) If so, is it unreasonable to assume that the first cause of the universe is affecting the change that takes place in the acorn?
yes - it is unreasonable to think the First Cause IS causing changes - "changes" being the product of "natural laws" - in acorns etc... those natural laws are inherent properties of matter and do not require the constant "attention" (to the extent First Cause is capable of "attention" - which we have not established in the preceding 20 questions) of the First Cause.
22) Is it unreasonable to assume that the cause which created matter and the big bang also established the “natural laws” that would govern the matter which it created?
A: no.
23) Are you familiar with the concept of “secondary causes”?
A: yes.
24) Aren’t “natural forces” such as gravity, electromagnetism, and strong/weak nuclear forces, etc., part and parcel (“products,” if you will) of the big bang?
A: yes.
25) Does not the concept of “force” presuppose something exerting that force?
A: yes.
26) Assuming that by your use of the term “nature” you mean the physical universe, how do you separate “laws of nature” from the first cause of the universe?
A: i don't separate them.
27) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on that. but i will not suppose that purely based on personal preference. i see no eveidence in the natural world for an "interested" - which implies sentient, and interested - being. again, why are you insistent on an interested god?
28) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules" - but that's what the evidence suggests. i know of no evidence for other than "mere molecules". what evidence do you point to for your belief in more than mere molecules?
29) Why, exactly, do you personally prefer a god who “doesn’t keep track of the goings on here on earth”?
A: same as above.
----------------------
so, what have we established so far? i'd say we've ONLY established a First Cause of matter/energy. we have not established sentience or purpose. and we are light years from the First Cause you think associated himself with ancient middle-easterners and "chose" them as receptacles of his cockamamie plan of cursing us w/sin then offering "redemption" and eternal life.
(i thought i had posted this third part, but when i "refreshed" to check for responses, it was gone! must be that vast right wing conspiracy trying to suppress my voice... bastages... i shall overcome!)
hey! it disappeared again?!
ReplyDeleteWalter,
ReplyDeleteWhat disappeared?
Walter,
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, Google thought your post was spam, and blocked it.
If anyone has that problem again, let me know.
Thanks
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteOK. Let’s break this down into smaller segments for the sake of clarity. I want to first look more closely at your answers to questions 1&2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Q1) In your estimation, is it more reasonable to assume that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or is it more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause?"
A: yes the universe (matter/energy) has a cause - a First Cause (but what caused the first cause...).
Q2) Is it more reasonable to assume that time is of infinite duration, or to assume that time had a beginning?
A: i don't know. i suppose it's reasonable to say that time started when the First Cause came into existence...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think you are understanding the concept of a first cause. For example, your answer to question #1 contains the question “but what caused the first cause?” The obvious logical answer is…nothing. If something caused the “first cause” the first cause couldn’t possibly be the first cause. At best it could only be the “second cause.” What about this seems illogical to you?
Secondly, your response to question #2 further reveals your misunderstanding of the concept of a first cause. You say “I suppose it’s reasonable to say that time started when the First Cause came into existence.” Walter, if something “came into existence” it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it necessarily had a cause. Hence, it could not be considered the first cause. Do you see the logic of that progression?
Peace.
randy,
ReplyDeletei understand the difference. but i don't think you can just "wave away" the "infinite regression" problem by inventing a first cause.
you're just assigning "eternal" or "always was" or "uncaused" to "First Cause". and then asserting that First Cause caused the universe. why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused?
we've been over this.
if you can't accept my "for the sake of discussion" concession that there might be an uncaused First Cause, but that "uncaused First Cause" is just as (un)reasonable as assuming an uncaused universe, then i guess that's the end of our discussion.
they're basically the SAME assumption - made into an area in which we have nothing to go on.
WALTER,
ReplyDeletei understand the difference. but i don't think you can just "wave away" the "infinite regression" problem by inventing a first cause.
So I revert to the same question I have asked you multiple times: Is it more reasonable to assume a first cause or to assume an infinite regression of causes? I am only asking you which seems more reasonable to you. You need to pick one or the other (instead of waffling back and forth between them when it suits your argument) and let's hammer it out. It doesn't matter to me which one you choose because I can argue it either way.
you're just assigning "eternal" or "always was" or "uncaused" to "First Cause". and then asserting that First Cause caused the universe. why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused?
So...you are prepared to ignore the “scientific” evidence that the universe had a beginning? That seems radically inconsistent to me, Walter.
we've been over this.
Indeed we have. And I can't figure out how you don't see the inconsistency of your responses (see immediately above).
if you can't accept my "for the sake of discussion" concession that there might be an uncaused First Cause, but that "uncaused First Cause" is just as (un)reasonable as assuming an uncaused universe, then i guess that's the end of our discussion.
Do you not understand the logic that anything that has a beginning has a cause?
they're basically the SAME assumption - made into an area in which we have nothing to go on.
Well, no, they are not the “SAME” assumption. A first cause does not have a prior cause, otherwise it could not be considered a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there is only an infinite regression of causes. Is that the position you want to take—an infinite regression of causes?
Just as an aside, your commitment to empiricism seems to be so radical that you are having trouble with basic logic. In my opinion our discussion at this point boils down to whether you want to go with an infinite regression of causes or if you are willing to completely concede the reasonableness of a first cause.
Pick one and lets proceed. If you can't avoid waffling back and forth between to two it is going to be quite difficult to have a meaningful discussion. It is unreasonable of you to want to have it both ways.
Peace.
Hey, here is a pretty cool story I found.
ReplyDeleteBoy genius set to disprove the big bang theory
From The New American
"Twelve-year old boy genius Jacob Barnett has already acquired boasting rights. He is already in college and possesses an IQ that is higher than Albert Einstein’s. He is currently working on an expanded version of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
As if any of that's not enough, Jacob has announced his intent to disprove the Big Bang theory.
Jacob explained his rationale to the Indianapolis Star. "There are two different types of when stars end," Jacob said. "When the little stars die, it’s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it’s more dense."
Jacob continued:
So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.
So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it’s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don’t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of carbon?
Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen.
Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old ... and that would just screw everything up."
Wow
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteContinuing:
=========================================
6) Is an acorn only potentially an oak tree, or is it actually an oak tree?
A: an acorn is not a tree. given the exact right sequence/combination of conditions it could become a tree. much more likely, thoiugh, it will become squirrel food, or insect food, or mulch/soil on the forest floor.
7) Can an acorn cause itself to change from an acorn to a fully mature oak tree?
A: no
8) If not what causes an acorn to change from a mere seedling to a mighty oak tree?
A: genetics and the right combination of air, soil, light etc...
9) If your response to #8 is “just reactions between matter and chemicals,” what causes these “reactions between mater and chemicals”?
A: ok, one could call it chemical/physical reactions btwn matter. these reactions are governed by "natural laws".
10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?
A: (a)natural laws are inherent properties of matter/energy. (b)because they are natural inherent properties, they do not vary - unless conditions vary.
So...doesn't it stand to reason that if a first cause is responsible for the creation of the universe of time/matter/energy, that first cause is also responsible for the creation of the “natural laws” that govern said time/matter/energy? You seem to be hanging the existence of “natural laws” on a sky-hook.
And “they do not vary—unless conditions vary”? What causes the conditions to vary? The only logical answer to that of which I am aware is that the first cause causes the conditions to vary. Unless you can formulate a scenario where conditions can cause themselves to vary it seems to me you're locked into a still-involved first cause, aren't you?
Peace.
good one MrM. in that article the boy says,
ReplyDelete"...hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon..."
huh?! the earth's NOT made mostly of carbon - so that's a red flag right there. does the kid think he's found some sort of "problem" with standard theories about star as element factories? hahaha... let's let him publish his theory in a reputable journal - not a john birch society article - and let other scientists have at it. that's how science advances. hopefully he WILL someday contribute to our scientific understanding of the universe. right now, it seems like folks are taking what he's saying and twisting it to mean what they want it to mean...
for example, it's funny how that article says the big bang is some sort of theory put forward by atheists trying to disprove the biblical creation story - or some such nonsense. scientists have moved way beyond comparing their theories to bible verses.
-------------
randy,
we're going backwards... i'll get to your comment soon.
WALTER,
ReplyDeleterandy, we're going backwards... i'll get to your comment soon.
Backward? Doesn't that presuppose that we have, at some point in the past, moved forward?.... :-)
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteC'mon, man. Surely you're not at such a loss that it takes 4 days to respond to my posts...
I thought you didn't want to get "distracted" from this particular discussion.
So...you are prepared to ignore the “scientific” evidence that the universe had a beginning? That seems radically inconsistent to me, Walter.
ReplyDeletei'm not ignoring anything. there is no theory for me to be ignoring. scientific theory only goes back to the big bang. no one knows what caused it. or what "was" before it. no one knows what exists "outside" the universe. i have often made the case, peter will tell you, that this is a GREAT gap for god, or First Cause. i only quibble about this because we don't know what "was" before our universe existed.
my opinion our discussion at this point boils down to whether you want to go with an infinite regression of causes or if you are willing to completely concede the reasonableness of a first cause.
Pick one and lets proceed. If you can't avoid waffling back and forth between to two it is going to be quite difficult to have a meaningful discussion. It is unreasonable of you to want to have it both ways.
FIRST CAUSE!
"10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?"
ReplyDeleteA: (a)natural laws are inherent properties of matter/energy. (b)because they are natural inherent properties, they do not vary - unless conditions vary.
"So...doesn't it stand to reason that if a first cause is responsible for the creation of the universe of time/matter/energy, that first cause is also responsible for the creation of the “natural laws” that govern said time/matter/energy? You seem to be hanging the existence of “natural laws” on a sky-hook."
i can concede that Yahweh, uh pardon, First Cause imbued matter/energy with "natural properties". can we go all the way up to 10?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMrM,
ReplyDeletesince my first comment showed up, now dated April 5, 2011 7:23 PM, i would have no problem if you deleted the April 6, 2011, 6:47 AM repeat of it. thanks. heck, you could even delete the two posts before it (April 5, 2011 7:40 PM and April 5, 2011 8:09 PM) referencing the once-missing post.
randy, you said,
ReplyDelete"And “they do not vary—unless conditions vary”? What causes the conditions to vary? The only logical answer to that of which I am aware is that the first cause causes the conditions to vary. Unless you can formulate a scenario where conditions can cause themselves to vary it seems to me you're locked into a still-involved first cause, aren't you?"
no.. when i talk about "conditions varying", i'm talking about changes in temperature, pressure, location, density, charge etc....due to natural laws. i'm not talking about changes in natural laws themselves. there's no need for a still-involved first cause. i'm supposing she created matter/energy with certain properties. she doesn't have to be currently manipulating chemical reactions etc...
Hi Walter,
ReplyDeleteI see you are pushing buttons. (^8
How do you know the First cause is a 'she?'
Hi Walter, Randy,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick interruption on your train of thought.
Finally Walter, you have admitted to which of the two is logical and more reasonable - the First Cause! Welcome to our ballpark! (^8
WALTER: "no.. when i talk about "conditions varying", i'm talking about changes in temperature, pressure, location, density, charge etc....due to natural laws. i'm not talking about changes in natural laws themselves. there's no need for a still-involved first cause. i'm supposing she created matter/energy with certain properties. she doesn't have to be currently manipulating chemical reactions etc..."
That misses the question about where the natural laws came from. On one hand you think the First Cause is more reasonable than nothing in creating the universe (for nothing does not have much to work with, does it? (^8), and from science, which you are always tauting, it does appear to have a beginning.
How would something (the natural laws), if they began without intent hold themselves together? Chance cannot hold anything together, for chance is alway subject to change with the flip of the proverbial dice. What causes these natural laws to function then?
Without mind how can the natural laws be either understood or put in place? And yet here you are, made in the image and likeness of God, trying to reason this out. Ironic, isn't it?
yeah, i said "she" just for fun. well... for fun AND to illustrate how silly it is that you guys call First Cause a "he". also, there's no need for first cause to have a "mind" or "intent" or to have done any causing "on purpose".
ReplyDeletethis "first cause" i'm allowing for in this discussion is miles away from your "ballpark".
WALTER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
WALT: you're just assigning "eternal" or "always was" or "uncaused" to "First Cause". and then asserting that First Cause caused the universe. why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused?
RCO: So...you are prepared to ignore the “scientific” evidence that the universe had a beginning? That seems radically inconsistent to me, Walter.
WALT: i'm not ignoring anything. there is no theory for me to be ignoring. scientific theory only goes back to the big bang. no one knows what caused it. or what "was" before it. no one knows what exists "outside" the universe. i have often made the case, peter will tell you, that this is a GREAT gap for god, or First Cause. i only quibble about this because we don't know what "was" before our universe existed.
When you argue “why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused” you are explicitly denying that the universe had a beginning. This is an obvious rejection of the argument I am trying to establish as the most reasonable—that the universe has a first and moving cause. Obviously the “Big Bang Theory” holds that the universe had a beginning.
You seem to be evading the obvious here, so I'll put it rather simply: Do you hold that the universe had a beginning, or do you hold that the universe is eternal/always was/uncaused?
RCO: “In my opinion our discussion at this point boils down to whether you want to go with an infinite regression of causes or if you are willing to completely concede the reasonableness of a first cause. Pick one and lets proceed. If you can't avoid waffling back and forth between to two it is going to be quite difficult to have a meaningful discussion. It is unreasonable of you to want to have it both ways.”
WALT: FIRST CAUSE!
Two questions in response to that acknowledgment:
1) Do you then acknowledge that your argument “why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused? is an unreasonable argument?
2) Do you now agree that logic demands that anything which has a beginning has a cause?
WALTER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
i can concede that Yahweh, uh pardon, First Cause imbued matter/energy with "natural properties".
Then can you concede that the first cause influences acorns, oak trees, mice, and men through the means of secondary causation?
RCO: "And 'they do not vary—unless conditions vary'? What causes the conditions to vary? The only logical answer to that of which I am aware is that the first cause causes the conditions to vary. Unless you can formulate a scenario where conditions can cause themselves to vary it seems to me you're locked into a still-involved first cause, aren't you?"
WALT: no.. when i talk about "conditions varying", i'm talking about changes in temperature, pressure, location, density, charge etc....due to natural laws. i'm not talking about changes in natural laws themselves. there's no need for a still-involved first cause. i'm supposing she created matter/energy with certain properties. she doesn't have to be currently manipulating chemical reactions etc...
So...I guess you would contend that “natural laws” are of such immutable character that it is not necessary that “he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3)?
Note: You are mixing multiple theories (some of which have been long abandoned) to make your argument. If you contend that natural laws are immutable you should be aware that your argument is text-book Steady State Theory—aka “The Infinite Universe Theory” and “Continuous Creation Theory.”
You are in essence arguing for an infinite universe (Steady State—long since abandoned in favor of the Big Bang Theory). If you argue it more from the “Continuous Creation Theory” side, you would be forced to admit of a still-involved first cause (unless, of course, matter can create itself....).
It seems to me that you have argued yourself into quite a corner here.
Peace
oh, brother... you and your self-congratulatory closings... no painting-into-a-corner here.
ReplyDeletei'm not arguing "steady-state", or continuous creation (whatever that is). furthermore, the choices you're trying to limit me to are old-fashioned. all i'm saying is we have no way of postulating what was before the big bang, or what exists outside of the "known universe". that's NOT "steady-state theory" or whatever - it's just an acknowledgment of limits of what we know (and possibly can know). if you want to suppose "god" lives outside the univeres, then that's fine. i don't know a way of disproving (or proving) that.
you asked:
"1) Do you then acknowledge that your argument “why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused? is an unreasonable argument?
aaaaarrrrgghhhh..... NO! i do not "acknowledge" that. as i've expressed my reservations many many times now, we don't know what was before the big bang, or what is outside the known universe - so those are perfectly reasonable possibilities. all we know from big bang theory is that there was a big bang some 14 billion years ago, or so, at which time all the matter in the known universe existed as a "singularity". that was the beginning of the universe as we know it. we don't know what caused it.
2) Do you now agree that logic demands that anything which has a beginning has a cause?
sure.
----------------
please stop going backwards. so far, i've AGREED THE UNIVERSE HAS A FIRST CAUSE. move on. make the case for yahweh of the ancient israelites. i get the feeling you keep going backwards because there is no forward here.
about the "natural laws", which i consider to be inherent properties of matter/energy, you asked:
"Then can you concede that the first cause influences acorns, oak trees, mice, and men through the means of secondary causation?"
yes, through natural laws operating within the known universe. and, i don't see any need for first cause to be currently actively "enforcing" her laws of nature. above, peter wondered what "holds natural laws together" or similar. he's incorrectly thinking of natural "laws" like man-made laws - as conventions btwn men requiring enforcement.
nonetheless, if you want to say first cause created "laws of nature", then ok, i've got no problem with that supposition.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't go back to asking about the reasonableness of first cause. (braces for backtracking about the reasonableness of first cause...)
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteRead the following exchange carefully:
RCO: Do you then acknowledge that your argument “why not skip a step and say the universe is eternal, always was, or is uncaused? is an unreasonable argument?
WALT: aaaaarrrrgghhhh..... NO! i do not "acknowledge" that. as i've expressed my reservations many many times now, we don't know what was before the big bang, or what is outside the known universe - so those are perfectly reasonable possibilities. all we know from big bang theory is that there was a big bang some 14 billion years ago, or so, at which time all the matter in the known universe existed as a "singularity". that was the beginning of the universe as we know it. we don't know what caused it.
RCO: Do you now agree that logic demands that anything which has a beginning has a cause?
WALT: sure.
WALT: please stop going backwards. so far, i've AGREED THE UNIVERSE HAS A FIRST CAUSE.
===============================================
Do you see any contradiction on your part in that exchange?
Peace.
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteBTW, did you see my two-part post to you concerning the fossil record on the "Ultimate Questions" thread?
you won't move on. nevermind.
ReplyDeleteWALTER,
ReplyDeleteSure I'll move on. As soon as we sort out your contradictory statements.
given that there is no evidence for what was before, or what exists outside our known universe, it is NOT UNreasonable to say the known universe is the latest incarnation of eternal matter/energy, or that our known universe is one small part of a much larger universe of unknown cause/age/origin.
ReplyDeleteit is also NOT UNreasonable to think the known universe is all there is.
i am capable of holding two (or more) plausible possibilities in my head simultaneously.
i'd like to explore your ideas here. so far, after months of something or other, we have:
ReplyDelete1)god made (caused) matter/energy
2)god made "natural laws" that matter/energy obey.
Hi Walter,
ReplyDeleteConsidering we are looking at the logic of the different views, it seems more reasonable to believe, just given the scientific evidence, that the universe had a beginning, and everything that we know of that has a beginning has a cause, that the cause is greater than the effect. You are sitting in a cart with the horse behind you wondering how the work is to be done in such a predicament. Is it not time to look at the only reasonable explanation? It is time to get the horse hitched to the front of the cart so that the work can be done?
You are doing your best to run from God. You won't find God outside of Jesus Christ. He is God. It is no good saying 'Lord, Lord...' If you don't know Him He will say, 'Away from Me you evildoer, I never knew you.' True religion is a relationship and standing with the Lord Jesus Christ, in His merit.
You don't KNOW Him.
The problem is the same as it has always been from the Fall, and throughout human history; pride instead of humility and rebellion instead of submission, by putting yourself as the authority over God. You have already demonstrated that your mind does not fathom much, just like mine. What are you sure of Walter?
WALTER,
ReplyDeletei'd like to explore your ideas here.... etc.
Sigh....
You claim to have conceded the first cause argument, but it is rather obvious to me that you neither understand it nor have you actually conceded it. As my apologetic will build several arguments upon the foundation of the first cause argument you will disagree with each additional argument, thus necessitating a constant return to the premises of the first cause argument. You will then become frustrated (as you obviously already have), and the "cycle" will begin all over again.
Nevertheless, here goes:
Presuming that there was a first and moving and ultimate cause of the universe, the next logical question becomes "what can we discern about the nature of first cause?"
These questions run along two lines: What can logically be known about the first cause knowing that "it" caused the universe to have being? and What can be logically known about the first cause by observing the universe which "it" caused?
The first argument I will make follows the first question.
Presuming that the first cause caused the universe to exist, we can logically presume that the first cause is eternal. It did not have a beginning.
So, if you disagree with this premise (and I'm sure you do) go ahead and state why. I will then return to the first cause argument and demonstrate how that when one actually does accept the reasonableness of that argument, "eternality" becomes a logical progression.
Peace.
WALTER,
ReplyDeletei am capable of holding two (or more) plausible possibilities in my head simultaneously.
You seem to be able to hold two or more contradictory "possibilities" in your head simultaneously. That's hardly something to be crowing about.
give me a day or two.
ReplyDeletesure,
ReplyDelete"first cause" could be eternal (especially since you've defined it as an "uncaused cause").
continue.
(i'm going on a week's vacation next week, so, if this thread times out, hopefully we can meet up somewhere and.... oh.. wait... nevermind!)
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteSo...we've generally agreed on the following:
1) Our universe is probably the effect of a first and moving cause.
2) The so-called "natural laws" which govern the universe were probably established by this first cause.
3) Said first cause is probably eternal.
Agreed?
Have a great vacation!
Peace.
hi guys. boy it's great not to have to deal with a timed-out thread etc.... thanks mrmeaner - you da man.
ReplyDeleterco,
agreed. continue.
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back. My daughter is getting married next week and we are in a headlong rush to finish preparations for the big day.
I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Peace.
civil ceremony at the courthouse?
ReplyDeleteWALTER,
ReplyDelete"civil ceremony at the courthouse?"
:-)......
What do you think?
how's everyone? randy, are you from anywhere near the flooding mississippi river?
ReplyDeleteRcofield asks, "Did our universe just pop into existence by its own volition, or was there a first and moving cause which brought it into being?"
ReplyDeleteI believe I have offered a very good answer to that question in my latest post - The Subject of the End Times and the Telephoto Effect.
Randy, Walter, what happened to your discussion of the First Cause.
ReplyDelete