The Causation Argument

[steve_bank]

The proof of god based on this this argument has several forms.

Generally the argument says all things we see occur through a causal chain. A bat hits a ball. Ball flies.

Therefore the universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an ancient text.

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

 

[James Brown]

Because then those people wouldn't behave themselves, and then where would we be?

 

[rousseau]

I'm of the perspective that you need to put this argument, and creation stories more broadly in their proper social context. In retrospect they're easily falsifiable when you have the benefit of a scientific understanding of the universe, but before materialism was knowable a 'creator' was a satisfying solution to the problem, and that's all that mattered.

These people weren't debating theism on the internet, they were doing their best not to starve to death. Why the universe existed wasn't a big concern.

Now the belief persists because of thousands of years of inertia, and it's smarty-pants people from the modern era who finally have the time/inclination to quash it.

 

[Learner]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

Indeed why not? You show 'em steve et al...

your causation argument.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

Indeed why not? You show em steve et al...

your causation argument.

I've offered mine, before.
We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'

 

[Learner]

I've offered mine, before.
We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'

I like your explanation pov. Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

 

[James Brown]

Because intelligence, even the crudest of sensory-feedback mechanisms found in the lowest of life forms, provides such an enormous advantage over non-intelligence in obtaining resources and reproduction.

Such an advantage comes at a high cost, which is why we don't see intelligence everywhere, but if there was no payoff at all then no one would play.

 

[Learner]

Because intelligence, even the crudest of sensory-feedback mechanisms found in the lowest of life forms, provides such an enormous advantage over non-intelligence in obtaining resources and reproduction.

Such an advantage comes at a high cost, which is why we don't see intelligence everywhere, but if there was no payoff at all then no one would play.

I dunno, to be aware doesn't need sensory feedback perhaps imo. The main intelligence, would not be everywhere like the brain in a larger body.

 

[rousseau]

I've offered mine, before.
We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'

I like your explanation pov. Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

Evolution is only relevant to matter. Thermodynamics are what caused life to come into existence by creating a constant input of energy, allowing life to increase in complexity rather than stay inert.

 

[Learner]

Evolution is only relevant to matter. Thermodynamics are what caused life to come into existence by creating a constant input of energy, allowing life to increase in complexity rather than stay inert.

Abiogensis you would call it but no dispute there, evolution being relevant to matter (only as far as we know).
Energy doing certain things and matter (each element) have unique behavioural properties e.g. governed by universe laws so to speak.

 

[Tigers!]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

By all ask the question of whether the universe has always existed.
What test is there that could show that the universe has always existed?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

Yes, matter and energy seem to be two forms of the same thing, all adding up to The Universe. So, why treat the two forms as distinct on the question of 'eternal existance'?

I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

because energy needs something physical to hold data. Forget the completely non-corporeal energy-beings in Star Trek, you need matter to store a pattern for memory, thoughts, locker combinations, and math calculations.
What evolves is matters ability to hold and use energy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

By all (means?) ask the question of whether the universe has always existed.
What test is there that could show that the universe has always existed?

No, the question you quoted is much better.
IFF you're going to claim something was here before The Beginning, why assume:
A) it was God?
B) it was not, well, EVERYTHING?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

By all ask the question of whether the universe has always existed.
What test is there that could show that the universe has always existed?

As Keith and others have alluded to earlier, you need to find something that actually "ends," and not just something that morphs into something else. Can you do that?

So if nothing ever ends, which is the case in every observation ever made, namely, that matter/energy is conserved, then there is no need for spooky religious "beginnings." See?

Why is it so difficult for creationist types to grasp this simple reality?

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

Indeed why not? You show 'em steve et al...

your causation argument.

Corr3ct ne if I am wrong, but god creted the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is defined as the ability to work, essentially to move or change the stae of matter. Energy is derived from relative states of matter, like falling water.

No energy no causation, or cause and effec6t.

The op is about god. Ca god run out of energy, the ability to create a universe? Is god always was and will be? From where dod god come from?

 

[atrib]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

By all ask the question of whether the universe has always existed.
What test is there that could show that the universe has always existed?

There is no empirical test at the present time. Our empirical knowledge allows us to rewind the universe to a point in its past, but no further. As the Wiki page on the Big Bang states:

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law – the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth. If the observed conditions are extrapolated backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the prediction is that just before a period of very high density there was a singularity. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if anything existed prior to the singularity.

So the correct answer is that we cannot definitively answer the question one way or another, based on the empirical evidence available to us today.

However, while we may not have a definitive answer to the question, cosmologists have developed models to describe the physics of the universe at the singularity, and beyond. Many of these models predict the existence of what cosmologists call the multiverse, which is a bigger realm outside the domain of the visible universe. And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

Indeed why not? You show 'em steve et al...

your causation argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative. All have serious problems. None are known to be true. Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

 

[skepticalbip]

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

"The First Cause" is a theological term, not a cosmological term. And there are models that have an eternal universe (see Brane cosmology and others), an eternal cyclic universe (see Penrose's CCC), and models that have the universe "pop into existence spontaneously, unexpectedly" but explicable (see "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss)