thorian said...
If Creation is 100% proof of a Creator, surely a Creator is 100% proof of a Creator of Creators?
Please explain, I really don't see how you can get around this.
@thorian
You asked for an explanation. A very simplistic explanation goes something like this. Given these two axioms:
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) so, the universe has a cause which did not begin to exist
The explanation is that this cause is the creator, which did not begin to exist. The creator is without beginning or end.
If, on the other hand, the creator did begin to exist, then there must be some cause for the creator. So we trace the beginning of existence of the creator back to a cause. And that cause did not begin to exist.
Eventually, we'll get to a turtle at the bottom of the stack. A turtle that does not have a beginning and that does not have a cause.
If everything began to exist, then everything has a cause, then there can be no "first cause." It's an infinite stack of turtles, with always another turtle underneath.
The most accepted scientific explanation for the universe is that it starts with the "big bang", and that everything proceeds from that event, and that nothing precedes that event.
Science does not do a good job of describing the cause of the "big bang", or describing what caused time and space to begin to exist, or what caused the physical laws of the universe to begin to exist.
Of course, one could posit that the universe itself (matter, energy, time, space, and the physical laws of the universe) is eternal (without beginning) and without need of a cause.
This is just a simple description of the explanation.
HTH
Steven J. said...
spencer7593 replied to thorian:
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
We do not in fact know this. Quantum physics, in which various events don't have deterministic causes, suggests that it might not be universally true.
2) the universe began to exist
We do not in fact know this. There are cosmologies, not demonstrated to be false, in which the universe has existed for all the time that has ever existed.
Now, in Stephen Hawkings' version, "all the time that has ever existed" is only about 13.8 billion years, but the universe occupies all of it: it does not have a "beginning" in the strict sense, but only a boundary in space-time.
Conversely, the Turok-Steinhardt cyclic universe is consistent with (though they do not say that it requires) a universe that has existed forever: each cycle of the universe is the effect of the previous universe and the cause of the next, and the cycles themselves might be eternal and uncaused.
3) so, the universe has a cause which did not begin to exist
Or it has a cause which has a cause ... [insert arbitrary number of iterations here] ... which did not begin to exist. Turok and Steinhardt offer one possibility for a cause of (this cycle of) the universe; the ekpyrotic cosmology with its colliding "branes" offers another. The uncaused cause might itself by a universe simpler if less finite in duration than this one.
If everything began to exist, then everything has a cause, then there can be no "first cause." It's an infinite stack of turtles, with always another turtle underneath.
You don't insist that this is impossible or absurd. The usual counterargument is that a universe would never get through an infinite amount of time and causation to reach this present point; the usual counter-counterargument is to compare time to a number line: there are an infinite (aleph one?) number of points before zero, yet you don't have to traverse them to reach zero or start there.
Rabbitpirate said...
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
This has not been definitively shown to the case. For example scientists believe that virtual particals exist uncaused.
2) the universe began to exist
The current state of the universe began to exist, we have no evidence either way as to whether the universe existed in a previous state before that of not.
3) so, the universe has a cause which did not begin to exist
Not so. Again scientists have not ruled out the possibility that things can come into being completely uncaused. If the universe itself did have a cause there is no reason to believe that that cause did not itself begin to exist, just simply uncaused.
The explanation is that creator did not begin to exist. The creator is without beginning or end.
When did you provide any reason to believe that we are dealing with a creator and not simply a cause? You seem to have missed a step in your argument.
But even if I just give you all of your point and accept that it had to be a creator rather than simply a cause, what evidence do you have that the creator was the Christian God?
@Rabbitpirate
I was providing a simple explanation to thorian, who asked a reasonable question:
thorian asked:
If Creation is 100% proof of a Creator, surely a Creator is 100% proof of a Creator of Creators?
Please explain, I really don't see how you can get around this.
I provided a very simplistic explanation to thorian.
We either end up with an infinite stack of turtles, or we arrive at a first turtle.
It's either "turtles all the way down" (e.g. A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking), or we arrive at a cause that itself is not caused (e.g. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.)
It's a philosophical question.
One which the scientific method cannot answer. The scientific method is inadequate to the task.
The most accepted scientific hypothesis for the existence of the universe is the "big bang" theory, which hold that time and space did not exist before the big bang.
As Stephen Hawking puts it, asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.
Certainly, you may choose to believe that things (like time, space, matter, energy, and the physical laws of the universe) spring into existence without cause.
But please, do refrain yourself from presenting that idea as demonstrated by the scientific method.
@Steven J
thorian asked for an explanation, when he said:
If Creation is 100% proof of a Creator, surely a Creator is 100% proof of a Creator of Creators?
Please explain, I really don't see how you can get around this.
I provided to thorian a simple outline of the explanation. It's not overly complicated.
If we take as
axioms these two propositions:
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause, and
2) the universe (i.e. time, space, matter, energy, the physical laws of the universe, et al.) began to exist
Then it logically follows (from the
axioms) that:
3) the universe has a cause which did not itself begin to exist
That's a very simple outline of the explanation. It's simple enough to grasp.
If we discount either of those two
axioms, then of course the conclusion fails.
I think you need to provide to thorian an explanation for the two alternative
axioms that you propose:
1) some things begin to exist without cause, and
2) the existence of the universe is without beginning
I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that
neither of those two axioms serves to explain why the Creator himself does not require a creator.
Steven J said ...
Or it has a cause which has a cause ... [insert arbitrary number of iterations here] ...
Well, yes. It's either "turtles all the way down", or there is a turtle at the bottom of the stack.
If we posit that the creator was itself created, then this is not the turtle at the bottom of the stack. That is, what we've identified is not the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover or Thomas Aquinas's First Cause. What we have identified is, by definition, actually a
part of the creation rather than the Creator.
As a logical consequence of its definition, the creator did not begin to exist. It is the "turtle at the bottom of the stack", without beginning and without cause.
Darkknight56 said...
spencer7593 said...
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) so, the universe has a cause which did not begin to exist
Actually, your syllogism is not formatted correctly. Based on the first two premises, the conclusion would be:
3) the universe has a cause.
There is nothing in your original major premise to suggest that the cause of something (in this cause what caused the universe) had to have not itself been caused.
spencer7593 said...
@darkkinght56
Yes, you are correct. From the two axioms, we conclude that the universe has a
cause.
If we trace back the chain of effects and causes, and if we arrive at a cause that does not begin to exist, then we've reached the initial cause.
Aristotle names this the Unmoved Mover. Thomas Aquinas calls it the First Cause.
The term 'creator' is a convenient label for it. The term 'creator' is shorthand for the expression 'the cause of the existence of the universe'.
The label itself does not answer the question whether there
is a cause for the universe.
And it doesn't answer the question (as posed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time), "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
Darkknight56 said...
spencer7593 said...
Yes, you are correct. From the two axioms, we conclude that the universe has a cause.
If, and only if, both axioms are true.
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
There is nothing in the axioms that show that the cause had to be a God. And there is nothing in the axioms that rules out the universe existing forever or multiple universes existing (see string theory and 11 dimensions).
@Darkknight56
thorian asked...
If Creation is 100% proof of a Creator, surely a Creator is 100% proof of a Creator of Creators?
Please explain, I really don't see how you can get around this.
I presented a simple explanation in my response of May 16, 2010 1:44 PM
It was a simple explanation of how we "can get around this", the requirement for a creator of creators.
The explanation is that given two simple axioms, we can demonstrate that creator is not created, the creator does not begin to exist, and the creator does not have a cause.
If any of those are true (that the creator is created, that there is a cause for the creator, or that the creator began to exist), then, by definition, what we have is a part of creation, rather than the creator.
If, and only if, both axioms are true.
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
Of course, if the axioms are not true, then the conclusion fails.
Darkknight56 said ...
There is nothing in the axioms that show that the cause had to be a God.
There is nothing in the conclusion either. No one, except for you, Darkknight56, felt it necessary to throw around a theologically loaded term like 'God'.
Aristotle calls it the Unmoved Mover (albeit in Greek not English). Thomas Aquinas calls this the First Cause. Some philosophers refer to this as the 'Uncaused Cause'. Modern day philosophers like Stephen Hawking refer to this concept as the 'creator'.
As the great bard himself penned:
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
So choose whichever label you like or dislike. If you want to apply the label 'God' to the concept (as Spinoza and Einstein did with another concept), then that is your decision.
Personally, I think it adds unnecessary confusion, rather than clarity. But by all means, apply whatever you label you like. But do please refrain yourself from suggesting that I applied the label.
The onus is upon you (not me) to demonstrate that your choice of a label ('God') is an appropriate term for the Aristolean Unmoved Mover.
And as you no doubt noticed in my original response to thorian, yes, we should consider the possibility that the chain of cause and effect stretches back into infinity.
And as I also noted in my original response, we should consider the possibility that the universe (time,space,matter,energy,the physical laws of the universe) did not begin to exist, that that they have existed forever.
So, I'm certain you recognize that none of what you said, in any way provides the explanation which thorian requested.
The onus is on you, not on me, to demonstrate the validity of the alternative axioms you propose:
1) there is no first cause, the chain of causality stretches back infinitely
2) the universe did not begin to exist but has always existed
3) more than one universe (or multiverses) exists
Certainly, these are valid courses of investigation. But, again, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that these axioms either explain or do not explain what thorian asked, why the creator itself does not require a creator.
