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?

[Complexity]

Hi Willum. I make everything needlessly complex. That is my MO. . My wife agrees with you. Actually I do try to be pithy, but this subject is multi-factorial with many unknowns.

It is only within the gaps that we would find creation of new matter either by some natural or supernatural means. I'd bet everyone on this forum agrees with you that hydrogen atoms are very stable. And we all believe in transformations without losing the essences of matter/energy. But is there more? Is there something that created and maintains this stability? The laws of physics aren't so fantastically deadly precise just because they are. The Philosophical Kalam argument isn't a 100% killer case for an uncaused cause, and an intelligent designer; but is does add to the plausibility.

I need no evidence to hope for a good, just, caring God. I need only a decent case for the superiority of God X, to gladly follow X. I've found 30 lines of evidence, any one of them could, alone, power my faith in the Christian God.

What level of evidence would you need to hope for a God? What level do you need to follow?

[Kenisaw]

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.

Excellent job? He makes the statement around the 5 minute mark that the imaginary time idea (part of the no boundary condition) doesn't create a universe at a singular point. This is not true. To quote from Hawking: "The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth."

So Craig is wrong.

At the six minute mark he talks about the window shade on the other side of the BB (as part of an example). He reaches a conclusion that cannot be reached however because no one knows yet what is pre BB. He even admits what he is saying is not an open and shut case.

The your supposed "BOSS" handling is ended with Craig making yet another false claim. He says imaginary time is used to flatten out spacetime, yet that what isn't what Hawkins is trying to do. Once again, from Hawkins: "The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football". Obviously not a flattened space.

Imagine what a good conversationan we could have had if you had bothered to read Hawkins, and then apply that knowledge to Craig's ramblings....

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.

I agree. Too bad we have no idea if time and/or entropy is a component of the pre BB situation. Infinite regression means nothing if cause and effect doesn't exist. Without entropy there is nothing stopping a highly organized system from staying in that state for extended periods of existence...

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.

Kingdom, you are still assuming that the start oif this universe had to have an external cause. But we know nothing about what was before the BB. We have no idea if an external cause is required for this universe, because we don't know how this universe started. However our universe began, it did so BEFORE the universe existed, which means we have no clue what the rules were, and what did or didn't exist, or for how long all those things were in place. If you read Hawkins, the no boundary condition with imaginary time doesn't require a cause, and this concept is mathematically valid. You can do the math yourself if you don't believe me. So claiming there has to be a cause is speculation on your part, which means you conclusion isn't necessarily valid...

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.

That's utter nonsense. Kalam is based on scientifically verified things, like the universe began to exist. Your claim isn't even supported by the work of your buddy Craig...

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.

I agree. As we already covered above, there is no reason to think an infinite chain of cause/effect is even possible, or required, because time isn't required to exist pre BB. Without an arrow of time, the cause/effect point is completely moot.

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.

I have no idea what the cause was. No one does. And no one knows the conditions pre BB either. That's why it is a colossal waste of time to use cause/effect regression or entropy arguments against this universe coming from something natural.

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've seen it, you just appear to have trouble comprehending it. I agree this current universe began to exist. I do not know that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, because I can't state with any confidence that I know all the various possible ways that something can begin to exist. Neither can you.

You don't get facts from purely philosophical musings.

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

Why you would keep a weapon that doesn't work in a weapons cache is beyond me.

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.

So you want to claim...that there is nothing to know about the things that we don't know that could refute the claim of infinite recession, which infinite recession cannot be proven to actually exist or not....because of what we don't know yet.

Please sit down before you get dizzy. That is some horrendously bad circular logic there Kingdom.

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.

Except that the argument is garbage because it is circular nonsense. The only thing that is bound by cause and effect is this universe. No one can say for certain that anything before this universe is bound by such things. It's even painfully obvious that even a god being cannot be bound by such parameters, because nothing is known about the existence of that hypothetical creature. Nothing outside this universe is guaranteed to work as you speculate it does.

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".

What a stupid statement. If we knew tomorrow based on new evidence that cause and effect cannot work outside this universe, then your statement about what is known is utter nonsense. Which is why claiming anything about what is and isn't possible pre BB is the worst possible argument one could make...

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.

2 is the only one that is true. Since 1 cannot be accepted because it might be false, 3 does not follow. Like I said, not a good use of your time.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Excellent job? He makes the statement around the 5 minute mark that the imaginary time idea (part of the no boundary condition) doesn't create a universe at a singular point. This is not true. To quote from Hawking: "The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth." So Craig is wrong.

LOL. Wait a minute, you stated that Craig said..

"...that the imaginary time idea doesn't create a universe at a singular point".

You said this in contrast to what Hawking said in a quote...

"The no boundary proposal predicts that the universe would start at a single point...but this point wouldn't be a singularity".

So, what can we gather from the two quotes?

Craig said: "On the no boundary model, the universe doesn't begin at a singular point.

Hawking said: "The universe would start at a single point, but this wouldn't be a singularity (singular) point."

Dude, they just said the same thing. SMH.

At the six minute mark he talks about the window shade on the other side of the BB (as part of an example). He reaches a conclusion that cannot be reached however because no one knows yet what is pre BB. He even admits what he is saying is not an open and shut case.

Right, in terms of the cosmological model that is in question.

The your supposed "BOSS" handling is ended with Craig making yet another false claim. He says imaginary time is used to flatten out spacetime, yet that what isn't what Hawkins is trying to do. Once again, from Hawkins: "The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football". Obviously not a flattened space.

Imagine what a good conversation we could have had if you had bothered to read Hawkins, and then apply that knowledge to Craig's ramblings....

If your "objections" are so valid, then they should have been raised by the folks in the audience, which would include scientists and philosophers. Vic Stenger was even there (RIP), who has been owned on more than one occasion by the great William L. Craig.

You can't rebuttal the truth.

I agree. Too bad we have no idea if time and/or entropy is a component of the pre BB situation.

Actually, we do. The kind of entropy needed to get the results (life permitting) that the universe achieved, would HAVE to be low. The low entropy was an initial condition of the big bang itself. No way around it.

Infinite regression means nothing if cause and effect doesn't exist.

An infinite universe cannot exist without a reality of cause/effect relations. SMH.

Without entropy there is nothing stopping a highly organized system from staying in that state for extended periods of existence...

?

Kingdom, you are still assuming that the start oif this universe had to have an external cause.

So if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, WITHOUT appealing to man (intelligent design), how will you explain the origins of your computer.

Your answer will have to lie internally, within the computer...how would you explain it?

Do you see how irrational your thinking is? All of this irrationality, just to negate the existence of a Creator. SMH.

But we know nothing about what was before the BB.

But we know it couldn't have been "more nature".

We have no idea if an external cause is required for this universe, because we don't know how this universe started.

It is called using common sense. If the universe (all natural reality) began to exist, then obviously, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be a product of what ultimately began to exist.

Obviously. If you can't understand such elementary logic, then I don't know what else to tell you.

However our universe began, it did so BEFORE the universe existed

Makes no absolutely no sense whatsover.

, which means we have no clue what the rules were

"We have no clue what the rules of basketball was before the game of basketball was invented".

Again, makes no sense whatsoever.

If you read Hawkins, the no boundary condition with imaginary time doesn't require a cause, and this concept is mathematically valid. You can do the math yourself if you don't believe me. So claiming there has to be a cause is speculation on your part, which means you conclusion isn't necessarily valid...

If by using imaginary time we find ourselves with an accurate depiction of the physical universe, then Hawking's quantum gravity model would be the prevailing theory in cosmology...but it isn't.

Hawking himself said "Only if we could picture the universe in
terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities."

(http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/step ... f_time.pdf para 1)

If you use ordinary time for the time coordinate, the singularity reappears...and even as WLC stated, even on Hawking's quantum gravity model, the universe began to exist, just not at a singularity point..but a beginning is a beginning nevertheless.

That being said, what would it mean for time any arbitrary physical object to endure through an imaginary two minutes?

Makes no sense.

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.

That's utter nonsense. Kalam is based on scientifically verified things, like the universe began to exist. Your claim isn't even supported by the work of your buddy Craig...

What? That particular quote was about the philosophical problem of infinity, and you are talking about "Kalam is based on scientifically verified things", which as nothing to do with the philosophical problem of infinity.

I agree. As we already covered above, there is no reason to think an infinite chain of cause/effect is even possible, or required, because time isn't required to exist pre BB.

Then how do you explain the effect of the BB? "I don't know" just simply won't work here.

I have no idea what the cause was. No one does.

Speak for yourself, because I do.

And no one knows the conditions pre BB either.

There can be no pre-conditions for a state of "nothingness".

That's why it is a colossal waste of time to use cause/effect regression or entropy arguments against this universe coming from something natural.

Wow..we agree.

You've seen it, you just appear to have trouble comprehending it. I agree this current universe began to exist. I do not know that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, because I can't state with any confidence that I know all the various possible ways that something can begin to exist. Neither can you.

Which gives rise to the possibility that some things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing. Anything but "God did it", right?

Why you would keep a weapon that doesn't work in a weapons cache is beyond me.

LOL.

So you want to claim...that there is nothing to know about the things that we don't know that could refute the claim of infinite recession, which infinite recession cannot be proven to actually exist or not....because of what we don't know yet.

I know.

Except that the argument is garbage because it is circular nonsense. The only thing that is bound by cause and effect is this universe. No one can say for certain that anything before this universe is bound by such things. It's even painfully obvious that even a god being cannot be bound by such parameters, because nothing is known about the existence of that hypothetical creature. Nothing outside this universe is guaranteed to work as you speculate it does.

Logic/Reasoning applies to even God. A squared-circle cannot be made in heaven, nor on earth.

What a stupid statement. If we knew tomorrow based on new evidence that cause and effect cannot work outside this universe, then your statement about what is known is utter nonsense.

A cause outside of this universe is what created this universe.

Which is why claiming anything about what is and isn't possible pre BB is the worst possible argument one could make...

SMH.

2 is the only one that is true.

If the universe began to exist..

1. It is just one product of an infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations.
2. It is the product of a First Cause (uncaused cause)
3. It popped into being uncaused out of nothing

#1 and #3 are equally and demonstrably absurd. Neither can happen in any type of reality. So, #2 is the only survivor...therefore, #2 is true.

Since 1 cannot be accepted because it might be false, 3 does not follow. Like I said, not a good use of your time.

So let me see if I can get this straight; if you are in your living room and you hear a loud shattering of glass outside of your window, and you look outside and see me standing next to your car with a baseball bat, and the windshield of your vehicle completely shattered, and you asked me "Why did you do that"...

And I say "I didn't do it, a horse popped in to being, uncaused out of nothing, and landed on your windshield, and the horse ran down the street".

Would you accept my explanation of the "cause"? Yes or no.

[Willum]

So the question of "what caused God," is easily answered.

God, like the arbitrary constraints of "caused" and "uncaused," comes from the human mind.

If you tag this on to the argument, that God is formed from the imagination, all paradox resolve themselves.

[William]

[Replying to post 94 by Willum]

If you tag this on to the argument, that God is formed from the imagination, all paradox resolve themselves.

What paradox has even been established?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 95 by William]

The paradox of...

What caused god?
Then, what caused the thing that caused god?
And so on.

[William]

[Replying to post 96 by Willum]

Already debunked.

If 'GOD' is eternal, nothing created It. Same cannot be said of the universe because it has an obvious beginning.

No 'paradox'. The idea of infinite regression is debunked. The argument for turtles all the way down is shown to be fallacy.

Things exist.

The reason things exist is because they had a beginning and thus they were created, because things with beginnings just don't pop out of nowhere.

That is the logical conclusion.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 96 by Willum]

If 'GOD' is eternal, nothing created It. Same cannot be said of the universe because it has an obvious beginning.

A Christian told me that scientific consensus holds that the universe began at the big bang. It seems to me that Christians claim a lot of things for science that science doesn't claim for itself, but I felt that I should check.

I went on campus, found a cosmologist, and put the question to him. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

No 'paradox'. The idea of infinite regression is debunked. The argument for turtles all the way down is shown to be fallacy.

Aren't you claiming that for your gods at the same time as you say it is a debunked fallacy? That's weird.

Things exist.

The reason things exist is because they had a beginning and thus they were created, because things with beginnings just don't pop out of nowhere.

That is the logical conclusion.

Now you're saying that gods don't exist? I'm confused.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 97 by William]

If 'GOD' is eternal, nothing created It. Same cannot be said of the universe because it has an obvious beginning.

Atoms are eternal, nothing needs to create them.
At the big [strike]band[/strike] bang, they were simply bosons, atoms that could pass through each other like ghosts.

So paradox remains resolved by an unneeded god.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused?

Where "un" = wasn't, and "caused" = something set that particular ball to roll.

So, if it is you see a ball roll by, and you can't tell how it came to roll, well that right there. That little bit of ignorance (clinical term), is God. Or it's something else I can't tell, only I'm gonna stick with it being God and all, on account of I can't fathom me no other answer.

Are these characteristics exclusive to God only?
...

Kinda hard to determine the characteristics of something we can't show's there to have it some of 'em.

Other'n to be a concept. And how 'bout that, come to find out God is something, bless his heart.