Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2016, 10:48 AM
Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
I came across this in a g+ community today and found it really interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efsD-AlDxEo
Someone send this to willam lane craig lmao.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like bussta33's post
07-02-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
I suppose that's the crux of my nihilism. The need is not known. If you can sufficiently explain the need for any of this, even if heaven and hell and a supreme being, whatever it's attributes may entail exist and will do so for eternity, then I'm all ears. That's the one question that fuels my worldview.... Why?

There very well may be a god. But why?

That's the problem, I've never heard anyone even attempt to answer that question. And until someone does, none of this means anything. I'll just do the best I can with what it is because that's what I have to work with.

I know that sounds depressing, but it's not. Once you accept the inevitable finality of that assumption, you're free to make it mean whatever you want to, and as long as you're not insane or just an asshole, everything is just fine. And enjoyable, because why not?

If there is no why, there is no why not.

There was obviously a cause of our universe, in some way shape or form. We obviously aren't meant to, or simply can't because there's no reason for us to anyway, know what that cause is so I'm simply not worried about it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
07-02-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
I would think you would have to show that as you go back in time the energy of the universe ceased to exist at some point, otherwise you don't have a beginning point. If something exists and you can't destroy it, then it doesn't have a beginning. It always exists.

The big bang refers to an expansion event, not the beginning of energy that expanded.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
08-02-2016, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2016 09:59 PM by Bear100.)
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
there are 2 major problems to common cosmological arguments (e.g. kalam) in arguing for cause of the universe.

1. infinite regress - if god made the universe, what made god? what made the thing that made god?... and so on. creationists will then often introduce the idea of an arbitrary "first cause" to attempt to alleviate this problem. but this is also problematic because of special pleading fallacy. what makes god exception to the rule? there really aren't any good reasons other than that god is this omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that made the universe in his own image - basically something made up of arbitrarily formed traits derived from books that often don't have factual credibility (e.g. bible).

but let's decide to be generous, concede the first argument, and see what happens:

2. so yeah, there is a first cause. but does that really mean that the first cause is god of the bible? big bang can be the first cause, flying spaghetti monster can be the first cause, it can be some aliens' elementary school volcano project gone wrong. or maybe it actually is the god of the bible. point is, there is a logical disconnect in going from "there is a first cause" to "that first cause is god of the bible".

maybe we're wrong and the creationists are right: there is a first cause and that turns out to be the abrahimc deity that caters to evangelic christianity. but they've got one hell of a way to go before they can convince the skeptics because their arguments so far can be easily debunked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 10:04 PM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(08-02-2016 09:56 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  there are 2 major problems to common cosmological arguments (e.g. kalam)

1. infinite regress - if god made the universe, what made god? what made the thing that made god?... and so on. creationists will then often introduce the idea of an arbitrary "first cause" to attempt to alleviate this problem. but this is also problematic because of special pleading fallacy. what makes god exception to the rule? there really aren't any good reasons other than that god is this omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that made the universe in his own image - basically something made up of arbitrarily formed traits derived from books that often don't have factual credibility (e.g. bible).

but let's decide to be generous, concede the first argument, and see what happens:

2. so yeah, there is a first cause. but does that really mean that the first cause is god of the bible? big bang can be the first cause, flying spaghetti monster can be the first cause, it can be some aliens' elementary school volcano project gone wrong. or maybe it actually is the god of the bible. point is, there is a logical disconnect in going from "there is a first cause" to "that first cause is god of the bible".

maybe we're wrong and the creationists are right: there is a first cause and that turns out to be the abrahimc deity that caters to evangelic christianity. but they've got one hell of a way to go before they can convince the skeptics.

So theists claim evil entered the world due to sin being "allowed" by "free will".
An omnipotent deity could have created (any number of layers of "higher order") beings, also given "free will" AND the power to make universes. The reason we see children with cancer and suffering etc, is that one of these "higher order" beings, also granted free will, but ordered NOT to create a universe with evil, chose to make a universe with suffering and evil, using their free will ..... Makes as much sense as anything THEY cook up. "First cause" is not demonstrated, (even if required). All their cause argument leads them to, is "proximate" (nearest) cause.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-02-2016, 02:10 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Some theists address the infinite regress by claiming that God is eternal and/or external to any temporal dimension, which means he doesn't need a cause of his own. Aside from just piling on more contrived attributes that have no hope of being demonstrated, this creates another problem. One of the properties common to most or all definitions of a god that I've ever heard is sentience and agentivity. God is not just an unthinking force of nature. He is a conscious being with free will. However, without any kind of temporality, the very concept of conscious choice and therefore agentivity loses all discernible meaning. Can there really be anything that we could remotely call "choice" or "decision" if there is no point in time before (or after) the choosing or deciding? If not, God then becomes completely indistinguishable from a non-sentient natural force unfolding simply according to the laws of physics (even if they might be as-yet-undiscovered laws).

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Glossophile's post
13-02-2016, 03:09 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Even if the universe does require an ultimate cause, what point would there be to debate about it? A perfect being would have to be infinitely incomprehensible. It could be Yahweh, but we'd have absolutely no way to know that without some indescribable revelation.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 04:00 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(07-02-2016 11:53 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  There was obviously a cause of our universe, in some way shape or form.
There was a cause to the expansion of our observable universe (the start of the big bang). But was that the beginning of existence, of time, of energy, of matter, of space?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 05:46 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
Just as there is a cause to liquid water expanding in the form of steam and then cooling creating condensation, it doesn't mean that cause created water. It doesn't mean that cause wasn't natural.

Steam expanding out from a boiling tea pot isn't the beginning of water.
Steam expanding from lava hitting the ocean isn't the beginning of water.

From inside an expansion event, our knowledge is limited, but just like our universe, tracing the expansion of steam back in time will get you to a point of when there is no steam, but it doesn't mean that the water is gone.

Mass and energy. Water and steam
Not precise analogies by any means.
I'm just trying to simplify things for the religious minds.

Complexity is not their strong suit.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
13-02-2016, 09:54 AM
RE: Why the universe DOESN'T need a cause.
(13-02-2016 04:00 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But was that the beginning of existence, of time, of energy, of matter, of space?

Time, matter and space as we know it in this universe....perhaps. But certainly not existence. The only thing that absolutely doesn't exist is "nothing". I'm of the opinion that everything else has always been around in some form.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: