the universe most likely didn't cause itself

The laws of thermodynamics are valid in a lab on earth, but not for universes. The first and second law can be broken.

How does option 2 violate reason ?

Some Christians argue that the uniformity of nature (i.e. that the natural laws don't change) must require God, as without him they should change. Keeping that argument in mind we have even less reason to believe that the natural laws as we know them also ruled prior to the Big Bang.

Fruit_Inspector 76 :

I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.

You know too little about the topic to make such a claim. Experts think that time can have a beginning. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state. FLRW talks about that hypothesis in post 86.

I have no clue which it is: though My personal preference is the latter - I have no basis in which to declare our notions of causality is universal even though that seems to be the basis for all theists in this thread.

That something can come from nothing is impossible.

Nor can the universe cannot be self-created as that would require the universe to exist before it existed.

I assume you mean that the sequence of causes must have begun. Why is that ?

then God cannot precedede the universe.

The reasoning you both arguing about assumes a universal time. I suspect though time was close enough to universal around the time of the Big Bang.

Who is the we that correlates these processes with intelligence ? I don't correlate the creation of gamma ray burst, white dwarf stars and tau neutrinos with intelligence.

Why is that ?

So God allegedly created the stuff within spacetime, but not spacetime itself ?

That is your belief and hypothesis. However there are many belief on the origin of the universe. The scientific ones referring to God are low on the popularity list in cosmological circles.

[What does eternity mean in the absense of time ?

You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.

Pointing out that they are no more justified than any random nonsense you want to pull from your a$$, is perfectly valid.

I mean, I can assert

that it is not possible for a fully formed intelligent being, with will and super powers to simply exist without cause

: and the demand that you have to demonstrate it’s possible by making such a thing occur, would not be reasonable, right?

Complexity can come from Simplicitly - we see it every day in nature with things like emergence.

Simple genetic algorithms use simple processes to build up staggeringly optimized solutions by unguided duplicating and pruning.

Simple reinforcement processes can make a simple, stupid Neuron “learn“, connecting them together can make a them find patterns.

RNA can form And self assemble, self replicate naturally.

So I’m terms of your question going from nothing to a fully formed intelligence is many, many steps over a long, long period of time.

So far we can get from protons and elections, to stars, to planets, to chemistry.

We can get from planets and chemistry to simple self contained RNA in cells - if we have luck.

Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear. 

From single cells to multi-cells is known, from multi-cellular colonies, to small differentiation,  and then to larger differentiation is not well understood; to basic multicellularity is simple - and from there to multiple types of animals is also simple - and from simple animals to all life, just needs evolution and evo-devo.

So breaking it down, not only explains why your demand is ridiculous -

it also explains exactly why there are not that many vast and insurmountable  gaps between the high energy protons At the Big Bang; and you and I talking about it.

Which laws of science does the claim that the universe started itself violate ?

71 It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.

So prior to the invention of the telescope, we could essentially only observe our own galaxy. If it was true that we knew of nothing that existed beyond our galaxy, would we have been correct to say that our galaxy is not an effect?

You're going to have to explain how this works:

An uncaused cause is the product of time

Second, recall that the premise all of that was based on is that there exists an uncaused cause. That was your premise, I was simply showing you where your premise leads.

Third, is that this is a comparative statement. I wasn’t assessing the strength of the conclusion, I was explaining why the universe having no cause is a stronger explanation than God being the uncaused chase.

Sure, let’s fix the emphasis and see if that clears things up:

An uncaused cause is the product of time

Let me know if you have any questions.

Engage the narcissist.

Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.

Q12: Why do you think it’s okay to ignore someone’s entire post without explanation, and then imply they are evading when they question why you didn’t respond? 

Q13: establishing definitions only matters if the definition impacts the conclusion. Neither of your definitions appear to change my conclusion; on what basis did you feel the definition changed my conclusion?

Q14: You appear to be changing the definition of causality. Please explain how this impacts my original conclusion - and please explain why you feel this new definition doesn’t invalidate your original argument.

Q15: You have suggested that the definition of causality can be changed to include causes being concurrent with or after effects - do you think this definition is consistent with our intuitive understanding of how cause and effect works? Why?

It's not in my opinion, and i think infinity and consciousness should be the biggest speculation of possibilities.

The biggest speculation of the infinite different ways reality can be bc consciousness has already imagined it. 

Second, recall that the premise all of that was based on is that there exists an uncaused cause. That was your premise, I was simply showing you where your premise leads.

No, you made an unreasonable assertion based on your own presuppositions, and then tried to force those presuppositions onto my argument.

I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause.

No, it doesn't because you need to address the fact that the cause is uncaused. That means that it isn't a product of anything. How can something that isn't produced by anything be a product?

So from here I took your assertion that there is an uncaused cause and showed you why, from that point, it would take less assumptions to presume that the uncaused cause is the universe as opposed to a god.

We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause.

I apologize for going ahead, but everyone reading this thread knows you’re attempting to prove a god so there’s no need to pretend.

I already explained this. Cause and effect are tied together by definition. You cannot call something a cause if there is no resulting effect. Putting the word “uncaused” in front of it changes nothing.

• An uncaused cause is the product of time.

That is an assumption based on philosophical naturalism. You then forced your naturalistic presupposition onto my argument by forcing me to accept that "we know of nothing beyond the universe that exists." I reject that presupposition.

The question you haven't answered yet is this - how can something be a product of something else if it is unproduced ("uncaused")?

It’s an assumption based on logic and reason,

which brings us back to the beginning. Your evidence for god is nothing more than blind assertions and special pleading supporting the idea that there is a god, which is then used to claim that the uncaused cause is likely a god, which is then used to justify your blind assertions and why god gets a special set of rules (special pleading). It’s just one big circle.

If you still take issue with this then answer this question… can something be a cause without something else being an effect of it?

• An uncaused cause is the product of time.
  

When I say it’s a product of time I’m not saying that time itself created it. I’m saying it could only be the case within the framework of time.

Most of your questions were highly repetitive and a waste of time. I summarized the whole issue by making it clear that I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality.

Because you were criticizing me for not answering your main point about causality and time. Then when I answered you about causality and time, you wanted to go back and talk about something else and not talk about causality and time.

Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.

How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.

Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.

Cool. I will start doing that. I will just chop our 95% of what you say, don’t link back to your argument; and when called out I will just assert that if was repetitive, a waste of my time and I summarized things

Do you honestly think this is a valid or intelligent way of having a discussion?

The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work;

When I say it’s a product of time I’m not saying that time itself created it. I’m saying it could only be the case within the framework of time.

949havoc 87 :

I'm trying to figure out what age of anything has to do with jump-starting the universe, or that it did it itself. Who really needs to tie age to it? It happened when it happened whether yesterday, this morning,   or billions of years ago, or more.

But I'll debunk the self-start theory for the same reason as the fallacy of ex nihilo; nothing from nothing.

Tradesecret 88 to Ramshutu :

The position was put. You did not like how it boxed you in. You changed the assumptions - to contain your own conclusions. 

You made me smile - mainly because you rationalized it so quickly without actually realizing what you were doing.

Ramshutu 85 :

Before. Implies time prior go an event

EtrnlVw 90 :

No, you are conflating time with existence. Existence does not rely on time, time relies on events even though events occur within existence. There must be a succession before time can be measured. A fixed reality has no succession of events. You're getting shit mixed up here, surely before I begin any event there was "time" before it...that's because I exist within a frame structure that occurred before me. I'm talking about before creation, before events unfolded. You do understand what fixed means right?

Fruit_Inspector 93 to Double_R :

So my claim is specifically that the universe is an effect, and must therefore have a cause. And to avoid infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause where all effects stem from. For the sake of this topic, we need not complicate the matter by determining what that cause is (God or some other eternal entity).

Double_R  92

You claim the universe could not possibly be eternal but God is.

Fruit_Inspector 93

Not solely based on some some arbitrary preclusion. I do not believe the universe is eternal mainly because of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which do not apply to God. So this is not an accurate comparison.

Ramshutu 94 to Fruit_Inspector :

IE: does the universe exist at all points of time, or not.

If it does - discussion of cause, or creation, etc, is meaningless because it’s not possible to have the cause preceding effect with no time reference.

n8nrgmi 100 to Double_R & Ramshutu

[ . . . ] while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically.

EtrnlVw 90 to n8nrgmi :

Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes, inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge.[7] That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product.

Amoranemix 120 :

How does option 2 violate reason ?

Fruit_Inspector 121 :

That something can come from nothing is impossible.[8] Nor can the universe cannot be self-created as that would require the universe to exist before it existed.[9]

Fruit_Inspector 76 :

I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.

Amoranemix 120 :

You know too little about the topic to make such a claim. Experts think that time can have a beginning. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state. FLRW talks about that hypothesis in post 86.

Fruit_Inspector 121 :

This comment was bringing Double_R's claim to it's logical conclusion. I reject his reasoning that every cause is the product of time.

Fruit_Inspector 123 to Ramshutu :

Well it seems reasonable to want to have an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality rather than just saying it doesn't matter. You have said that the idea of an uncaused cause is possible, but it violates our notions of causality. You are assuming what "our notions of causality" are, while dismissing an attempt to try to come to a fundamental point of agreement. But let's look at the time issue to avoid more of your rambling.

You stated than an uncaused cause is possible. Now an uncaused cause would have to be self-existent, not requiring anything else for it's existence. This entity, whatever it may be, does not require time to exist. The possibility of an entity that can exist without time must be factored into this discussion. Specifically, can a timeless entity cause time to come into existence without time previously existing?[4]

Amoranemix 120 :

I assume you mean that the sequence of causes must have begun. Why is that ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

On a logical note an infinite past is not possible no matter how you look it, you can't have two linear ends that never reach a destination.[5] I think everyone probably knows this, they just haven't thought it through enough to agree with it. I've settled the dispute with a fixed reality, where movement (creation) appears on top of that eternal framework.

[beliefs about the nature of reality]

The atheist doesn't seem to understand that we have two natures of reality...we call one eternal and the other temporal. Eternity is fixed, but temporal is dependent upon the beginning of an event and the end of the event. Basically time only appears where we have a succession of events that occur where we can measure the distance between them but there is no succession of events in eternity and so there is no time that can be measured, there is no beginning point and ending point. As I said it is a fixed Reality.[6]

[beliefs about the motives of atheists]

EtrnlVw 82 :

The BB represents the beginning of time, cause and effect. What precedes that has no relation to time, cause and effect. I'm positing that God precedes the BB.

Amoranemix 120 :

Precedence requires time. If the universe exists for T >= 0 and there is no T < 0 then God cannot precedede the universe.[a]

The reasoning you both arguing about assumes a universal time. I suspect though time was close enough to universal around the time of the Big Bang.[b]

EtrnlVw 125 :

[a] If the "universe" is eternal it is only because God is eternal. That being said when I refer to a beginning I'm referring to creation....events that occurred after the BB. Creation is the processes God manifests to bring things into existence.

[b] Time began at the BB, this is where we observe an expansion, this is where we begin to observe events taking place. Prior to this, it was a fixed reality where there was no sequence of events. Again, eternity is not an infinite past and future it is a static fixed state of existence. In other words there is no recollection of birth and death and so there is no relation to something that began and something that will end. Linear time is non-existent.

EtrnlVw 82 to Ramshutu :

The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence.[3] If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work.[4] Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.

Amoranemix 120 :

[3] Who is the we that correlates these processes with intelligence ? I don't correlate the creation of gamma ray burst, white dwarf stars and tau neutrinos with intelligence.

[4] Why is that ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

[3] Processes that reach a desired outcome for a desired product indicate knowledge. This is about as simple of a commonsense observation one can make.

[4] I like things that align with commonsense logic?

I don’t want to go back and “talk about something else”, I simply want you to not ignore an entire post someone makes; I made a whole number of key points, and argument restatements that are critical - because I’m going to now have to restate them for maybe the 6th time as you keep ignoring them  ..

My main point is absolutely not about causality and time: it’s about what conclusions we can draw from our intuitions. And you not understanding what my argument is, is exactly why I object to you systematically ignoring it.

Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.

It only matters if it impacts the conclusion. If whatever definition you want to supply still works - then arguing about the definition is a red herring.

As I pointed out: the definition you’ve used throughout doesn’t impact anything. It still doesn’t really

You have made no attempt to show how the argument is impacted - you’re just saying it is - just objecting to something because you can object...

How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.

I was pretty clear what I meant by causality from the start; cause and effect coupled in time. Arguing that time is not part of causality is brand new: and something you should have said at the start, no? Rather than simply springing it after a half dozen posts and pretending that this is what you meant the whole time.

Your characterization here is comprehensively false.

Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.

I’ve been fairly clear throughout: you completely ignored it: Your definition doesn’t match what we observe, or how we understand causality.

What we intuit and observe about causality requires time; and does not make sense without it. Time travel does not lead to a causality that makes sense - including things like paradoxes; and still involve linear causality (effects always occurs in a causes local future - but not necessarily a global future).

But your overt fixation with definitions is missing the point - as should have been clear in the post you ignored.

The central point is that no possible solution for the universe matches our understanding of how things work; so we cannot deduce a solution using our current understanding.

If we change our understanding of how things work: we have no basis for assessing the validity of what we come up with - so we can draw no probability.

This whole weird definition side track demonstrates my point.

In order to conclude the universe was created; you have to define causality as non temporal. If you do that; all other options are now just as reasonable.

You would be aware of this had you read my argument or had you actually tried to show how changes in definitions impacted my argument - it would also have shown that applying it to your own argument undermines your conclusion.

This is why I’m calling you out for constantly ignoring me. My argument doesn’t functionally rely on causality actually being one way or another; something you have yet to wrap your head round; only that it must not follow the rules as we observe or perceive them - and if doesn’t: we have no basis upon which to speculate: in both cases the original conclusion you made - is false.

It’s that link back to my argument - and your argument you keep ignoring. It’s not clear how any of your objections link to what we said; thus it appears you’re just trying to find an objection - any objection : Picking peanuts out of poop.