the universe most likely didn't cause itself

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 219
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise. 

1.  lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning. 

2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?

i acknowledge that there could be evidence that contradict these principles... the problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe, all we have is speculation that these presumed principles are faulty. 
#2
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgmi
God/Universe/Cosmos = finite set of occupied space, that, eternally exists, in whatever state/phase/energy etc other labels want to apply. Simple to rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

To go off on any other pathways than the above is likened some conspiracy-like non-sensical.

Universe may be a mystery but it is no secret ---secret conspiracy by aliens or other----.

It is irrational non-sense to even consider occupied space something-ness coming from non-occupie space nothing-ness.

Why do people forgo rational, logical common sense for off the wall, ---brainless---  irrational illogical lack of common sense pathways of thought?

There are various reasons;

1} ___?____,

2} ___?____.

3} ____?___.




#3
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Well first things first.
Can we get a rough approximate.  

The approximate age of the universe ?
The approx  age of  planet earth ?
And the approx ummmmmm "age" of God ?

(A)
14 billion. 
4 billion.
10,000 years

(B) 
10,000
10,000
10,000

Orrrrrrrrrrr

( C ) 
? Dunno 
?
?

Give it a guess.  
A 
B
Or C 

Two answers seem feasible and one seems ludicrous? 
What answer seems the most far fetched? 
Can we eliminate one ? 
#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning. 
Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.
#5
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@ethang5
The sentence.   ( The universe started itself )  instantly  trips that mechanism in ya head. 
But just when ya start to realize it is silly. 
In comes the statement / sentence.  ( God started himself )    from the " nothing "  

Soooooooooo.
We've boiled it down to two possibilities.  
( A )  The universe started itself. From the "nothing"  
Orrrrr
( B )  God started it or himself.  From the nuff nuff

A or B?

Both these options sound silly BUTTTTTTT. 
One sounds hellerious , . How do i spell that word?  Sillly.

One makes you want to think.
The other makes you laugh. And is barley worth putting it into any sort of consideration. 
Something like that.  

A God either exists or it doesn't aint a 50 / 50. 
Is it?
She Fongs5
Whats your percentage for.
God existing  ( ________ ) 
God not existing  ( ________ ) 

Hey do you think a atheist could answer this 
 God existing  ( ___ 0 % ___ ) 
God not existing  ( _____ 100 % _____ ) 

I'd hate to be asked this question. 

Good day. 
#6
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
The laws of thermodynamics show that the universe will eventually end in a heat death. 

The end is finite. At some point we have to rely on God to take us to the dimension of heaven.
#7
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The universe started itself. From the "nothing"  
Orrrrr
God started it or himself.  From the nuff nuff
Fake. The universe is inanimate matter. God is not.

In comes the statement / sentence.  ( God started himself )    from the " nothing "  
The only person who says God "started" himself is you. Implying this is Christian doctrine is dishonest. I don't mind you being dumb, but dishonesty will be challenged.
#8
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise. 
More accurately, I think, atheists say "the universe appears by all evidence available to have 'begun' at the big bang." THeists say "God created the universe." This leads to questions:
  • What created god? Answer is usually "nothing, God's eternal." Next question:
  • Why can't the universe then also be eternal? Answer "because it's not god" / "it's made of matter." Next question:
  • Then what's god made of? I've not hear a coherent answer on this one, feel free. 
The issue you might be having is that no one knows or can know what was 'before' the big bang if that even makes sense. THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it. Me, I just accept that there's no good answer and it really has no impact on my life or anyone else's, ever. THeists assign a cause without justification. Some people think the universe is a cycle of big crunch to big bang, on and on. 

#9
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it.
I agree with the analysis that any claims about how the universe began fall into one of three categories:
  • The universe is eternal
  • The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
  • Something caused the universe to come into being.
Option 1 violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Option 2 violates reason. That leaves option 3.
#10
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Option 3 leads to infinite regress. 
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The laws of Thermodynamics as far as we understand, came into existence at the point of the Big Bang. What could you possibly know about whatever laws would have applied to the universe if it existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang?

Also, cause and effect is an observed law of the universe. How could you possibly know if it applies outside of the universe?

Both of these questions are of course rhetorical, the answer is that you have no idea and neither does anyone else. Same with your God proposition. It’s all just baseless speculation.

And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time, something God supposedly presides outside of so claiming he caused the universe is incoherent.
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgmi
Q1: What caused God?
Q2: Why couldn’t your answer to Q1 apply to the universe?
#13
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Option 3 leads to infinite regress. 
So do you agree with option 2, that the universe is self-created?
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, I don't know. 
#15
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
The laws of Thermodynamics as far as we understand, came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
This statement requires one to believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If you have no idea what laws may or may not have been present prior to the Big Bang, how can you possible make such a statement?

And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time,
By your own logic, how can you possibly know if this applies to God who is outside the universe?
#16
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
No, I don't know.
Do you believe it is possible for something to come from nothing on its own?
#17
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Take out the 'on its own part,' it adds nothing of value to your question, and it assigns agency unnecessarily to whatever 'something' is. I don't have any reason to believe that, no. Generally 'something' comes from 'something.' 
#18
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
The only reason I add that is to distinguish between something coming from nothing without a cause or with a cause. If God created matter and energy when there was previously no matter or energy, I would consider that to be something coming from nothing in the physical sense. Without God, this would be physically impossible.

Generally 'something' comes from 'something.' 
Generally?
#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, generally, as I don't have any evidence that something can come from nothing does not mean it's impossible, just that it's not been shown to be possible. 

If God created ....
What created God?
#20
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
1.  lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning. 

2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?
So let me see if I understand this:

The universe exists - and we can make a variety observations of it. Ageed.

From that, you unilaterally declare that the rules of causality must apply as we observe them to the entire physical reality in which we live; even though a) you have absolutely no basis on which to speculate that this is so, and b) the laws of physics and specifically quantum theory have already torpedoed every notion of classical causality you could have.

You then go on to state, matter-of-factly, that there are various limitations and rules of the universe or any potential physical reality that contains that cannot be violated; despite having utterly no basis of any kind, in any way to draw that conclusion.

After making those two specific and completely unjustified assumptions; you then seem to assert or at least imply, that there is no possible physical, or metaphysical configuration, of any kind, of our deeper physical reality that can possibly lead to the existence of this universe given those undemonstrable unjustified assumptions; you make this assertion with absolutely no justification, and no demonstration.

From those two unjustified assumptions, and unjustified assertion you then appear to suggest that any possible physical configuration of the universe that does not boil down to some personal entity with a consciousness, a will, and some desire to create that exists as some deeper layer of reality - and who is immune to the same underlying assumptions you use to Preclude a physical cause: is someone more likely.


This is not a coherent argument and can be countered with the simple sentence 

.... either that, or the ultimate laws of physics and causality of our reality do not have the same constraints or limitations as our subset of it.

#21
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
What created God?
Nothing. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
This statement requires one to believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If you have no idea what laws may or may not have been present prior to the Big Bang, how can you possible make such a statement?
Simple. First, take note of the phrase “as far as we understand” that you conveniently missed. Then, take note of the rest of my statement that you conveniently cut out…

“If you have no idea what laws may or may not have been present prior to the Big Bang, how can you possible make such a statement?”

Notice the implicit assumptions within the question;

1. That the universe itself may or may not have existed in some other form prior to the big - we just don’t know

2. That *if* the universe existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang, the laws of thermodynamics may or may not have applied - we just don’t know

So no, the statement taken in context requires nothing but for the person on the receiving end to read it and understand what is being asked.

Would you like to answer the question now?

And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time,
By your own logic, how can you possibly know if this applies to God who is outside the universe?
Once again, let’s go back to the rest of the statement you conveniently cut out;

“…something God supposedly presides outside of so claiming he caused the universe is incoherent.”

The statement wasn’t an assertion about the nature of God (reminder, you’re talking to someone who doesn’t believe there is a God), the statement was an assertion about the lack of coherence to claiming that a being who presides outside of time follows a law that is by definition, a product of time.

So could it be true? Sure, in the same way that anything is possible. But to believe it’s true is a whole different thing, that requires you to hold the idea of it inside your head, which you cannot possibly do without throwing out the 2nd law of logic (non-contradiction).
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What created God?
Nothing. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
…

Q1: What caused God?
Q2: Why couldn’t your answer to Q1 apply to the universe?

#24
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Nothing. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
Ah, the exit from infinite regress through the door marked "special pleading." I don't know what an 'uncaused cause' looks like under your lack of definition. Please clarify because it sounds an awful lot like you believe something can come from nothing, which would run counter to your argument against the universe being able to come from nothing. 
#25
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
Yes. Or specifically - I believe that the nature of reality or metaphysics allows our rules of causality to exist without itself being predicated on those same rules of causality.

But that’s it.


The issue here is one of equivocation - what theists mean when they say “some uncaused cause”, is “some uncaused cause - that has a mind - a consciousness - has a specific will - ability to alter events at will - is some how indistinguishable from reality itself and appears to have some degree of interest in creating a universe and human affairs.”


Nothing about philosophically accepting the first inherently necessitates pulling all of that other unnecessary nonsense into the definition of that first cause; and certainly not through sneaky implication - the undistributed middle being  swept under the carpet with such statements as “that first cause is god”




#26
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Nothing about philosophically accepting the first inherently necessitates pulling all of that other unnecessary nonsense into the definition of that first cause; and certainly not through sneaky implication - the undistributed middle being swept under the carpet with such statements as “that first cause is god”
I never made the implication that the uncaused cause must be God. I was only making the point that the universe exists by one of three ways:
  • The universe is eternal
  • The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
  • Something caused the universe to come into being.
I would say the only reasonable choice is option 3. After that has been established, then the nature of the "something" that caused the universe to come into being can be explored further.
#27
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Ah, the exit from infinite regress through the door marked "special pleading."
How is this special pleading? If every effect must have a cause, you either have infinite regress or an initial uncaused cause. That does not automatically imply the Christian God, but you have the same problem to deal with. I hold that there is an initial uncaused cause. Which one do you hold to?
#28
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
Q1: What caused God?
Nothing. God is eternal and unchanging.

Q2: Why couldn’t your answer to Q1 apply to the universe?
Because I do not think it is reasonable to say the universe is eternal, do you?


The laws of Thermodynamics as far as we understand, came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
If something "came into existence," that implies it did not exist at some point. That's like saying, "We have no idea whether the Laws of Thermodynamics existed before the Big Bang, but they didn't exist prior to the Big Bang as far as we know." That is an unhelpful statement to preface your question with.


What could you possibly know about whatever laws would have applied to the universe if it existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang?
My understanding is that the laws of physics have applied to the universe for as long as it has been in existence. Why should we assume otherwise?


And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time, something God supposedly presides outside of so claiming he caused the universe is incoherent.
I never claimed that the law of cause and effect applies to God. You assumed that was necessary, while at the same time claiming universal ignorance of the matter. That was my criticism.

God is not an effect, only a cause. Of course if there was no effect (creation), then He would not actually be a "cause." He would just be an eternal unchanging Being.
#29
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The list is not correct as it makes a number of implicit assumptions about causality.

Things should be rephrased as follows.

- Is there any point in time in which this universe doesn’t exist?

If the answer is no; then it cannot be caused in any way that matches our notions of causality.

If the answer is yes; then the universe exists within some greater reality. Is there any point in time in which this greater reality doesn’t exist?

Repeat.


There’s only two possible options: that there is infinite regress by always answering yes, in which case our notions of causality breaks down; or you answer no at some point, and our notion of causality breaks down.


The real bottom line, is that to explain our existence requires a violation of our notions of causality. 



If we know our notions of causality have to break down - it’s incoherent to prefer an element on the list because it more closely adhere to our notions of causality over others.
#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Ramshutu
@Fruit_Inspector
Well that is just about the "best" rationalization I have seen in a while.  When the logic is unable to be refuted, we will simply say - sorry we can't use that we will use our own which implicitly will lead to our presumptions.  In other words, change one set of assumptions with another set of assumptions and hope that no one notices. 

What a cop out.  Well and truly beaten by the implicit logic. Well done Fruit Inspector