How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"

[jgh7]

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 69 by For_The_Kingdom]

Sorry, True, no such law of nature. You've been conned by religious propaganda.

Why not sooner? Why not later? If the conditions for this "transformation" existed since past eternity, then it could not have possibly transformed only a finite time ago.

Because it is the Big Bang, you want to treat it as something special, but it is just another thing that happens.
Why does ice choose a particular moment to crystallize?
The answer is, quite simply events led up to to the Big Bang, it reached a state where the forces within it exceeded gravity.

Does that help?

[William]

[Replying to post 71 by Willum]

The answer is, quite simply events led up to to the Big Bang, it reached a state where the forces within it exceeded gravity.

You are conflating the BB with the object of infinite density[OID]. The BB is the result of the events leading up to it occurring, rather than that which occurred prior to that.

The effects of the BB are also not the BB event. Thus the BB only really existed for a very brief instant.

Prior to the BB, something else existed, (oft referred to as the [object of] infinite density) and after the BB, the universe unfolded, and continues to do so.

Think of it like a fireworks cracker.

The cracker represents the OID
The BB represents the cracker going off.
The universe represents the cracker after it has gone off and spread everywhere.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 70 by The Tanager]

Well, yes, almost transcendentally so:

The mass of a hydrogen atom (ignoring isotopes, again for simplicity), remains the same for all eternity.

And the mass of the universe doesn't change for all eternity.

That's a pretty cool little observation you've made.

As to the Big Bang, if you forgive me with a segue to stellar evolution, imagine our friend hydrogen:
When gravity overcomes inertia, gas clouds form (of hydrogen).
When gravity overcomes what is called the "Strong Nuclear Force," helium and stellar reactions begin to occur. This is a normal star.
When gravity over comes the Weak Nuclear Force, electrons are pulled into the nucleus, neutralizing them, and forming neutrons. This is a Neutron Star.
When gravity overcomes what is called Neutron Degeneracy, bosons form, in what we are familiar with as a black star, or black hole. Bosons are cool in that they pass through each other like ghosts, so you can have an infinite number of them in the same nucleonic volume.

I take you through that, so you can imagine essentially what happened in the Big Bang, but played in reverse, and for the entire universe, not only a star.

A mass of bosons, with the mass of the universe, were able to delocalize such that they exploded into neutrons, which had enough room to also explode into hydrogen, where, the universe as we know it began.

So, right or wrong, that is my perspective - caused and uncaused are not required vocabulary in that... Matter as we know it is formed in the belly of massive stars, like our own.

V/R

[Kenisaw]

Willum wrote

Sorry, I thought I read you studied physics. So, none of those really weird alternatives you mention are germane.

I might be running off on a tangent here, but what else is new. I think you are saying that science applies only to the natural realm. I’ve debated this point in other venues. There is no law of the universe that limits science (or rational inquiry) to only what we can see, touch with current tools, an subject to repeatible public-access testing. Wikipedia says science =

systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

If we all decide that science only deals with things in our visible universe; fine. I’ll go along with whatever definition the masses decree. But then we’d need a name for the rational investigation of potential other universes and realms. Call it super-science, or whatever. If a god is involved we’d call it theology apollogetics.

When I run tests in the lab and find odd results, I have never suspected ghosts or gods were interfering (playing games with me, like an ant in an ant-farm). When we talk about origins, every explanation is super-strange. It would be an intellectual error to leave out any possibility just because it felt more strange than the others, or because it doesn't have direct testibility. The thought that microscopic living organisms live inside of us was once considered too strange to consider; which slowed down medical advancement. When I was young the idea of multiple-universes was laughed at, but now it is a part of serious science investigation.

Science (hard reason and testing) can and has been applied to Biblical history, artifacts, consistency of belief systems, evolution, intelligent design, etc. The philosopher’s tools of logic/reason should be applied to every search for truth; natural or supernatural. We should use every tool in our toolbox to investigate the potentially most important issue ever. There is only an artificial wall put up, by some on both camps, between science and faith (the supernatural possibility). It bothers some Atheists that they don't have direct, daily access to heaven, and can't take scales to heaven to weigh spirits. But how could it be any other way, if an uncaused first cause created a natural realm very different from the supernatural, made connections, gave revelations, but had reasons to not reveal all, not to fly across the sky every morning in a flaming chariot. Good reasons include the preservation of free will, making earth a spiritual bootcamp of education, and man's inability to understand.

It is a great mistake to think that truth can be obtained thru purely philosophical musings. One can only assume that their premises are accurate, because there is often no way to verify that accuracy. Of course one could state premises that are scientifically accurate and validated, but then that isn't purely philosophical...is it.

[Kenisaw]

"Uncaused" is an unnatural and unnecessary concept, dispelled by an educated understanding of the "conservation of matter and energy." Since nothing is ever created,only transformed, there is not need for a first cause.

False. Again, the laws of nature (specifically, the first law of thermodynamics) came into being only after the universe began to exist. The fact that the universe began to exist is not up for debate in academic circles..and if the universe began to exist, then of course, an external cause is required.

No way out of it.

Whoa now. We have no idea if that is true. For instance, the concept of imaginary time and the no boundary condition states that the laws of physics existed before the universe, and actually caused the universe.

We don't actually know what the rules and laws were before the Big Bang, so we can't actually state that the laws of physics appeared at the beginning of the universe.

While the fact that this universe had a beginning is a generally accepted truth, how it came to be is definitely not. What existed, if anything, before the BB is widely open to debate. It is also widely open to debate what causes are possible, or if one is needed at all.

Your statements are not accurate.

Even the Big Bang isn't a 'creation' of matter or energy, only a transformation from a dense state to like things are now.

Ok again; the question would now be why did the universe "transform" from this dense state only 13.7 billion years ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later? If the conditions for this "transformation" existed since past eternity, then it could not have possibly transformed only a finite time ago.

Again, this is a philosophical problem, and no amount of science can help you here...so appealing to it is a waste. You can fight it all you want, but the fact still remains.

You don't get facts from purely philosophical musings.

We have no idea when the conditions for a "transformation" existed. So asking why it happened when it did is pointless until we understand why it happened in the first place, which we don't know.

Your attempt to infuse Kalam into this discussion (and Tanager's corresponding thread over in the Science and Religion Forum) is not a valuable use of your time. Kalam is logically flawed because the premises assume things to be true that we cannot say are true.

[William]

Regarding the object of infinite density[OID]

The point is, it is a physical object - it's size is not the issue. Assuming the theories are correct and the universe will eventually no longer hold any physical objects - it will be an 'object of infinite non-density' which signifies the fate of the object of infinite density.

Certainly I would have to agree that calling the object 'infinite' is misleading - but I didn't name it that...

In reality it seems best to call it 'the object of infinitesimal density' before the BB and 'the object of largest density' at the end of its motion, hundreds of trillions of years from now. Either way - if not both immeasurable, certainly both the same thing under opposite circumstances as it were.

But how it came into being is that which is under question. The BB is simply a reaction to it - like in its infinitesimal state, it could not contain itself and *BOOM!* but in its opposite state it has become it's own container, albeit an empty and inert void, devoid of energy, because all the energy was used to get it to that state.

If what Willum says is correct, one could argue that it becomes one immeasurable hydrogen atom. Sure one can argue that it would be an uncountable number of hydrogen atoms but that would be semantics under the circumstances.

The main point is that if this is the fate of the universe we are experiencing, it is not an eternal process and because it had a beginning, it cannot have created itself. Thus it cannot be understood to be 'uncaused'.

[Kenisaw]

Regarding the object of infinite density[OID]

The point is, it is a physical object - it's size is not the issue. Assuming the theories are correct and the universe will eventually no longer hold any physical objects - it will be an 'object of infinite non-density' which signifies the fate of the object of infinite density.

Certainly I would have to agree that calling the object 'infinite' is misleading - but I didn't name it that...

In reality it seems best to call it 'the object of infinitesimal density' before the BB and 'the object of largest density' at the end of its motion, hundreds of trillions of years from now. Either way - if not both immeasurable, certainly both the same thing under opposite circumstances as it were.

But how it came into being is that which is under question. The BB is simply a reaction to it - like in its infinitesimal state, it could not contain itself and *BOOM!* but in its opposite state it has become it's own container, albeit an empty and inert void, devoid of energy, because all the energy was used to get it to that state.

If what Willum says is correct, one could argue that it becomes one immeasurable hydrogen atom. Sure one can argue that it would be an uncountable number of hydrogen atoms but that would be semantics under the circumstances.

The main point is that if this is the fate of the universe we are experiencing, it is not an eternal process and because it had a beginning, it cannot have created itself. Thus it cannot be understood to be 'uncaused'.

Your last paragraph here makes no sense to me. The fact that the universe exists right now does not prove it is an effect from a previous cause. The fact that it had a beginning does not tell us anything about before the beginning.

Cause and effect is an arrow of time phenomena. It is clearly shown via the process of entropy. To extrapolate those characteristics of this current universe to the point before this universe is not logical. We haven't the first clue what rules were in place, what the state of things were, and how the universe came to be (or if there even was anything in the first place). If there was no entropy then things could move back and forth between states with no energy penalty.

We cannot say that a universe that had a beginning had to have a cause, because we have no idea what the conditions were that led up to the universe beginning.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 73 by Willum]

You are against the vocabulary of cause, but I don't understand why. Taking your first statement about stellar evolution, I see no difference between what you said and this:

When gravity overcomes inertia, this causes gas clouds to form (of hydrogen).

This has nothing to do with the existence of God, it's just about the concept of certain physical conditions leading to another physical occurrence.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Whoa now. We have no idea if that is true. For instance, the concept of imaginary time and the no boundary condition states that the laws of physics existed before the universe, and actually caused the universe.

Ahh yes, imaginary time. Dr. Craig did an excellent job of responding to this dude's quirky "advocation" (for lack of a better term) of imaginary time. The question/objection starts at 3:27 and Dr. Craig handled it like a BOSS from there..with the meat and potatoes of imaginary time starting at around 6:23.

[youtube][/youtube]

That aside, still; the philosophical arguments against infinite events in time still holds true regardless of any description of the universe or any concept of time.

We don't actually know what the rules and laws were before the Big Bang, so we can't actually state that the laws of physics appeared at the beginning of the universe.

Bro, the universe had a beginning. And if the universe had a beginning, then an external cause is absolutely, positively required. No way around it. Now, you can certainly posit any kind of pre-big bang model you like, but then you are at that point speculating and exercising faith, which is something I thought was only reserved for believers.

And again, philosophical arguments are independent of science, so the arguments against infinite regress isn't going anywhere...as they are so powerful that even God himself is bound by it..so not even God can get you infinity..and if God can't do it, then neither can Aristotle, Copernius, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, or any other wise-guy scientist that you'd like to appeal to.

While the fact that this universe had a beginning is a generally accepted truth, how it came to be is definitely not.

Well, it certainly could not have been one effect on an infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations.

What existed, if anything, before the BB is widely open to debate. It is also widely open to debate what causes are possible, or if one is needed at all.

Well, name the natural cause, and I will add it to the long list of impossible causes which lack the explanatory power to be considered the origin of physical reality.

Your statements are not accurate.

The universe began to exist (which you admit the consensus), and everything that begins to exist must have a cause. If there is an adequate objection to this intuitive rule of thumb, then I ain't seen it yet.

You don't get facts from purely philosophical musings.

I don't...that is just one weapon in a completely full Apologetic weapons cache.

We have no idea when the conditions for a "transformation" existed. So asking why it happened when it did is pointless until we understand why it happened in the first place, which we don't know.

Nice try, but see; in this case, the ole "I don't know" routine doesn't work...because there is nothing that you can come to "know" that will undermine the power of the philosophical problem facing the concept of infinite regression.

Again, God himself is bound by it, and the universe is certainly bound by it...so there isn't anything within the universe or beyond the universe that will allow you to undermine the implications of the argument.

So you say "I don't know"...and I say "It doesn't matter what you know, or don't know, because the argument will stand....regardless".

Your attempt to infuse Kalam into this discussion (and Tanager's corresponding thread over in the Science and Religion Forum) is not a valuable use of your time. Kalam is logically flawed because the premises assume things to be true that we cannot say are true.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Again, you already admitted the consensus regarding #2..and #3 logically flows from #2. So that only leaves #1...and if there is an objection to that premises, I ain't heard it yet.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 69 by For_The_Kingdom]

Sorry, True, no such law of nature. You've been conned by religious propaganda.

What?

Why not sooner? Why not later? If the conditions for this "transformation" existed since past eternity, then it could not have possibly transformed only a finite time ago.

Because it is the Big Bang, you want to treat it as something special, but it is just another thing that happens.

SMH. You completely missed the point. Like...completely.

Why does ice choose a particular moment to crystallize?
The answer is, quite simply events led up to to the Big Bang, it reached a state where the forces within it exceeded gravity.

Does that help?

No, it doesn't help. Not at all.