Uncaused Cause Proof

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I would like to hear some feedback on a variant of the uncaused cause proof that I think may be irrefutable. I don't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this:

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. Each cause has in fact been caused by something before it.
3. Science tells us that if we trace all causes backwards we finally come to a cause which is the cause of all events after it.
4. This cause is called the "Big Bang"
5. The Big Bang must have a cause.
6. Since matter, time, and space came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside of time, space, and matter.
7. Since there can be no cause and effect without time, the cause of the Big Bang must be an uncaused cause.
8. This uncaused cause we call God.

While this proof does not prove the existence of God, it proves that there must be a being that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being.

[mortify]

Sounds pretty good to me! You know when the idea of the Big Bang was first hypothesized, it was resisted by many scientists of the time! It was held for a long time that the universe was eternal, and this was easier to fit in an atheist paradigm. But the idea of a beginning raises some philosophical questions that can be rather uncomfortable! As the syllogism says, there must be transcendent cause to our material universe. Certainly not a palatable view for a materialist!

Hey Btw...

Anyone know what astrophysicist first suggested the Big Bang?

Here's a hint:

[img]http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Lemaitre.jpg[/img]

Wait? Is that what I think it is! GASP! A Priestly collar!!!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308972959' post='2258384']
Hey Btw...

Anyone know what astrophysicist first suggested the Big Bang?

Here's a hint:

[img]http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Lemaitre.jpg[/img]

Wait? Is that what I think it is! GASP! A Priestly collar!!!
[/quote]

*shrug*

Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308972196' post='2258370']
I would like to hear some feedback on a variant of the uncaused cause proof that I think may be irrefutable. I don't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this:

1. Everything must have a cause.
2. Each cause has in fact been caused by something before it.
3. Science tells us that if we trace all causes backwards we finally come to a cause which is the cause of all events after it.
4. This cause is called the "Big Bang"
5. The Big Bang must have a cause.
6. Since matter, time, and space came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang, the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside of time, space, and matter.
7. Since there can be no cause and effect without time, the cause of the Big Bang must be an uncaused cause.
8. This uncaused cause we call God.

While this proof does not prove the existence of God, it proves that there must be a being that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being.
[/quote]

I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974379' post='2258403']
*shrug*

Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, was a monk...
[/quote]

I'm not exactly sure how that plays in

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

What ever your uncaused cause is would need to exist outside of time because we know from the theory of relativity that you can't have time without matter.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1308974635' post='2258408']
I'm not exactly sure how that plays in
[/quote]

Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally.

On the flip side it's like saying that evolution is bad because Darwin was an atheist.

This sort of mixing is one of my pet peeves.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308974759' post='2258410']
What ever your uncaused cause is would need to exist outside of time because we know from the theory of relativity that you can't have time without matter.
[/quote]

Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another.

Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308975643' post='2258425']
Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally.

On the flip side it's like saying that evolution is bad because Darwin was an atheist.

This sort of mixing is one of my pet peeves.



Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another.

Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.
[/quote]

Definitely agree about the mixing. It's bad science and bad religion. Also, it's non rational, not proving anything.

For the purposes of this argument, the uncaused cause doesn't need to be intelligent or consciously capable of designing a universe. It has to be capable of causing a universe. We know from the big bang bang and the theory of relativity that the uncaused cause must exist outside of time, matter, and space. Time, space, and matter all had to be created by the uncaused cause. Whatever that cause is, it has to be powerful enough to do it. Anything with the powers of this uncaused cause would have many of the powers of the God you don't believe can exist.

Also not qualified to comment on Hawking.

Edited June 25, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308976321' post='2258439']
Definitely agree about the mixing. It's bad science and bad religion. Also, it's non rational, not proving anything.

For the purposes of this argument, the uncaused cause doesn't need to be intelligent or consciously capable of designing a universe. It has to be capable of causing a universe. We know from the big bang bang and the theory of relativity that the uncaused cause must exist outside of time, matter, and space. Time, space, and matter all had to be created by the uncaused cause.[/quote]

Up to here I agree.

[quote]Whatever that cause is, it has to be powerful enough to do it. Anything with the powers of this uncaused cause would have many of the powers of the God you don't believe can exist.

Also not qualified to comment on Hawking.
[/quote]

How would you describe the powers needed?

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308977323' post='2258449']
Up to here I agree.



How would you describe the powers needed?
[/quote]


The power to call forth something that does not exist into being. If you agree that there was a "time" (figuratively speaking-no time before matter) before matter, time and space existed, The Cause had to call that matter into being.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308977499' post='2258450']
The power to call forth something that does not exist into being. If you agree that there was a "time" (figuratively speaking-no time before matter) before matter, time and space existed, The Cause had to call that matter into being.
[/quote]

Well it's a good argument, but how do you know that there was nothing before the big bang? As far as two other hypotheses go, there's the multiverse, which would say that we're the product of a favourable universe among many, Penrose's cyclic universe (in which the universe was not created nor will be destroyed, but go through successive big bangs) and the brane which also was always there.

None of these have good proof to back them up though, the multiverse and brane theory are waiting on string theory to deliver I think and Penrose's theory will be falsified if when we observe gravitational waves.

Though I just don't have faith that whatever caused the universe to "start", if you will, is conscious and intelligent, both of which most religions describe their god to be. Deist and theist.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308975643' post='2258425']
Mixing science and religion too much by saying that some scientists were religious. Whether the astrophysicist was a priest or Mendel was a monk is actually irrelavent to science. It is for them only, personally. [/quote]

I mentioned it only as an interesting aside. People have this notion that religion and science are diametrically opposed, and yet Fr Laimetre an astrophysicist who hypothesized the Big Bang (with evidence, of course!) Secondly, many people tend to think science disproves religion, yet the Big Bang nicely supports the doctrine of an Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. the universe has a beginning, a belief that was contrary to classical Greek Philosophy.)

[quote]Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another. [/quote]

The question here is what is your understanding of God. If you view "god" as the venerable old man sitting on a throne in heaven, then yea, that's not the uncaused cause. And just as a note, Catholics never had this view of God. You can open up a book of of medieval theology and look under the category of God, and you wont see a description of the Artwork in the sistine chapel, instead you will see things like Infinite Existence, Absolute Simplicity, Actus Purus, etc. Although artistic representations are great, they are merely artistic representations, and they have sadly been misunderstood as theological treatises by some (e.g. when an atheist tells me my "god" is equivalen to a "sky fairy".) So now back to the point. What is an uncaused cause, that is beyond space, time, and matter? First, if its outside of space-matter-time, you have something transcendent. This alone shatters the materialist foundation! If something transcendent brought something into existence that was not originally there, there must be a reason for it's existence. This reason lies in consciousness. "Causing" is a conscious action. What you further have to understand, is that this cause is not merely past tense, i.e. it caused the big bang, and that it finished. No! This cause is ongoing. If the universe was created from nothing, what prevents it from going back to nothingness? The same cause that brought it into existence! And again, this is an eternal act of consciousness. The fact that our universe has laws, that are again upheld but this uncaused cause, further points to this reality. We can make sense of our universe! We can reasonably expect the sun to rise every day! It's because of the fact that future events can be predicted on past experience, that we even have a science! Put simply, if the uncaused cause were not conscious and intelligent, there would be no laws, and we wouldn't exist!

[quote]Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.
[/quote]

Pheh... it's the same old run down argument presented in modern terminology. There is a record of an Islamic Philosopher named Al Ghazzali arguing with an atheist in his time. Al Ghazzali was using his knowledge of anatomy and human physiology to point to a design in creation. The atheist argued that the animals, birds, plants, etc that we see around us, ALWAYS existed. In other words, there never was a beginning! This debate occurred in the 12th century, and atheist tactics haven't changed. Where there is evidence for a beginning, propose an infinite regression! Where there is a big bang, propose infinite big bangs! The universe expands, collapses, explodes, and expands again, in an infinite cycle!

Way to be original atheism!

Btw, for any of you art nerds. There is a famous painting, unfortunately I can't remember the artist, but it depicts all the famous thinkers of the world. In particular, you see the eternal debate, shown between Socrates and Plato walking through a door. Socrates is pointing down, and Plato is pointing up! In that painting, although it is a Western painting, there is a depiction of Al Ghazzali in the corner meditating on some thought!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308980578' post='2258475']
I mentioned it only as an interesting aside. People have this notion that religion and science are diametrically opposed, and yet Fr Laimetre an astrophysicist who hypothesized the Big Bang (with evidence, of course!) Secondly, many people tend to think science disproves religion, yet the Big Bang nicely supports the doctrine of an Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. the universe has a beginning, a belief that was contrary to classical Greek Philosophy.)[/quote]

Those things are one baby step away from becoming a faulty association, and one that I've heard quite frequently. If it was merely trivia, then I have no qualms with it.


[quote]The question here is what is your understanding of God. If you view "god" as the venerable old man sitting on a throne in heaven, then yea, that's not the uncaused cause. And just as a note, Catholics never had this view of God. You can open up a book of of medieval theology and look under the category of God, and you wont see a description of the Artwork in the sistine chapel, instead you will see things like Infinite Existence, Absolute Simplicity, Actus Purus, etc. Although artistic representations are great, they are merely artistic representations, and they have sadly been misunderstood as theological treatises by some (e.g. when an atheist tells me my "god" is equivalen to a "sky fairy".) So now back to the point. What is an uncaused cause, that is beyond space, time, and matter? First, if its outside of space-matter-time, you have something transcendent. This alone shatters the materialist foundation! If something transcendent brought something into existence that was not originally there, there must be a reason for it's existence. This reason lies in consciousness. "Causing" is a conscious action. What you further have to understand, is that this cause is not merely past tense, i.e. it caused the big bang, and that it finished. No! This cause is ongoing. If the universe was created from nothing, what prevents it from going back to nothingness? The same cause that brought it into existence! And again, this is an eternal act of consciousness. The fact that our universe has laws, that are again upheld but this uncaused cause, further points to this reality. We can make sense of our universe! We can reasonably expect the sun to rise every day! It's because of the fact that future events can be predicted on past experience, that we even have a science! Put simply, if the uncaused cause were not conscious and intelligent, there would be no laws, and we wouldn't exist![/quote]

Actually, no that's not how I see the theistic conception of god (the anthropomorphic Zeus). That would be ridiculous. Though I do see it as an antropomorphism, but of the mind, not of the human form, especially within theism.

Causing is a conscious action? Would that also mean cause and effect even within our universe by non conscious agents (unless you subscribe to panpsychism)?


[quote]Pheh... it's the same old run down argument presented in modern terminology. There is a record of an Islamic Philosopher named Al Ghazzali arguing with an atheist in his time. Al Ghazzali was using his knowledge of anatomy and human physiology to point to a design in creation. The atheist argued that the animals, birds, plants, etc that we see around us, ALWAYS existed. In other words, there never was a beginning! This debate occurred in the 12th century, and atheist tactics haven't changed. Where there is evidence for a beginning, propose an infinite regression! Where there is a big bang, propose infinite big bangs! The universe expands, collapses, explodes, and expands again, in an infinite cycle!

Way to be original atheism![/quote]

If some form of physical evidence ever turns up to support the idea, it will be more than Al Ghazzali's philosophising. What does it have to do with atheism, if scientific evidence turns up which supports the idea, then it's scientific, not atheistic.

(though science is atheistic in the purest sense of the word, at least until god is detectable through it. It's not anti-theistic though.)

As far as I know there isn't really "nothing" in physics. If you're interested, there's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss called 'A Universe From Nothing' on Youtube where he explains how we could get something from "nothing", which isn't really nothing. .

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308981974' post='2258487']
Actually, no that's not how I see the theistic conception of god (the anthropomorphic Zeus). That would be ridiculous. Though I do see it as an antropomorphism, but of the mind, not of the human form, especially within theism.[/quote]

Basically a reversal of Genesis 1:26. So why do you see it that way?

[quote]Causing is a conscious action? Would that also mean cause and effect even within our universe by non conscious agents (unless you subscribe to panpsychism)?[/quote]

To make something from nothing requires infinite power. Note, when I speak of "nothing," I mean absolute nothing. So if I ask you to picture "nothingness" in your mind, and blackness comes to mind, that's still some[i]thing[/i]. Take the next step, and then you will see what I mean. So for something, to come out of nothing, is essentially an infinite jump. We humans don't create in the true sense of the word, we simply mold what already exists. Creating something is an intelligible act. It has purpose, because for something to exist that need not exist, there must be a reason for it. Further, what exists is ordered, i.e. is governed by natural laws. What goes up must come down. Order reflects intelligibility, if that is even a word! And again, the cause of the universe is still causing it. Sustaining the universe is all intelligible. All things ultimately fall under the governance of this cause, and therefore even seemingly accidental or non conscious agents serve some purpose. It is what we call Divine Providence.

[quote]If some form of physical evidence ever turns up to support the idea, it will be more than Al Ghazzali's philosophising. What does it have to do with atheism, if scientific evidence turns up which supports the idea, then it's scientific, not atheistic. [/quote]

You yourself admitted in a previous post that there is no good evidence for these ideas. So ask yourself this, if there is no good evidence, why is it even speculated?


[quote](though science is atheistic in the purest sense of the word, at least until god is detectable through it. It's not anti-theistic though.)[/quote]

Science isn't atheistic. Science is a methological study of the world through hypothesis, test, and evidence collection. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, cience originated in Catholic Europe because we value reason, believe in an orderly universe, are not-pantheists, and recognize seeking knowledge as a good thing.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308985014' post='2258510']
Basically a reversal of Genesis 1:26. So why do you see it that way?[/quote]

Humans trying to explain god. I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a god or gods, but I seriously doubt that god is as people say he is. We're limited to our own experiences. One major reason why I don't accept truth claims from people on his supposed behalf.

An example: the quantum world. Quoting Feynman: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. There is evidence for QM however, so that's where the analogy breaks down, and its predicitions can be tested with great accuracy.

To me, god looks like the reasoned (rational or not) conclusion, but still just an idea.


[quote]To make something from nothing requires infinite power. Note, when I speak of "nothing," I mean absolute nothing. So if I ask you to picture "nothingness" in your mind, and blackness comes to mind, that's still some[i]thing[/i]. Take the next step, and then you will see what I mean. So for something, to come out of nothing, is essentially an infinite jump. We humans don't create in the true sense of the word, we simply mold what already exists. Creating something is an intelligible act. It has purpose, because for something to exist that need not exist, there must be a reason for it. Further, what exists is ordered, i.e. is governed by natural laws. What goes up must come down. Order reflects intelligibility, if that is even a word! And again, the cause of the universe is still causing it. Sustaining the universe is all intelligible. All things ultimately fall under the governance of this cause, and therefore even seemingly accidental or non conscious agents serve some purpose. It is what we call Divine Providence.[/quote]

That's the point, how do you even know that pure nothingness even existed?

[quote]You yourself admitted in a previous post that there is no good evidence for these ideas. So ask yourself this, if there is no good evidence, why is it even speculated?[/quote]

Evidence? String theory and gravitational waves? That would be physical evidence, which is what I meant by the word.


[quote]Science isn't atheistic. Science is a methological study of the world through hypothesis, test, and evidence collection. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, cience originated in Catholic Europe because we value reason, believe in an orderly universe, are not-pantheists, and recognize seeking knowledge as a good thing.[/quote]

I used the word atheistic because god (as religions put it) would be outside the realm of science, not that science is anti theistic or even theistic. I didn't mean it in the sense that it promotes atheism or is analogous to atheism's theology (or atheology).

Maybe materialistic would've been a better word.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx