Yes, which is why I said, quite clearly, that it’s an empirical principle that seems to hold for some processes in our observable universe. I get the awful impression that you’re not following the argument that is being made, namely that you urgently need to justify how you can take this experience and generalise it to the universe as a whole, and more particularly to the emergence (or creation, if you will) of a whole universe from conditions that are inaccessible to us, and probably entirely unknowable. You cannot just cite common experience because there is no common experience when it comes to making a universe. I hope that is clear enough now.
I asked you before to be specific about what you mean, in terms of the Aristotelian scheme, when you say “cause.” If it is our ordinary everyday conception of the word then the answer to your question is a very definite “yes.” I have provided links to such effects which you seem to have simply skipped over.
It is all logic founded on experience and then doing inference work therefrom.
So, we know from science that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, therefore it has need of a cause which we call creator.
We now have a creator that is outside of this universe, and as you may well know anything outside our universe is unknowable. So to give this creator any properties is just projecting our own wants and desires.
“…anything outside our universe is unknowable,” that is not true.
How would you know that anything outside our universe is unknowable; the most you can say is that if we do not think according to what we know and infer therefrom we cannot at all say anything about anything outside our universe to be knowable or unknowable; but if we do think, then we can come to know about something outside our universe that is the cause creator of the universe.
Here:
We know that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
So, the universe has a cause because everything that has a beginning has a cause.
That cause is outside the universe or what I call without the universe.
Therefore we know something outside the universe, namely, the cause creator of the universe.
Yes. The decay of radioactive elements come to mind.
So, the universe has need of a cause which we call creator.
Who is “we,” and why do “we” call it a creator as opposed to just calling it a cause?
You will ask the question, and why does God not need a cause?
And now it isn’t just “creator” anymore; the creator has had an upgrade to becoming “God.” You are making some pretty big leaps of logic here.
The answer is because God has no beginning, He always exists, even before time and space at all began to exist -- from His creation.
Oh? How can you tell? Which experiment or observation have you made that indicates that God has no beginning?
So, what exactly is your difficulty with the concept of a being that has no beginning but exists, period, and is the cause of everything with a beginning?
Mainly that there is no evidence for such a thing. But your own arguments also indicate problem here. For one thing, you insist that our logic should be based on experience. The most fundamental aspect of our experience is the second law of thermodynamics, which requires that all energy be slowly downgraded into diffuse heat. Therefore, there cannot be such a thing as an eternal being.
Now I would not actually call myself an atheist, but you seem to me to be making very big leaps of unevidenced inference above.
As we’ve seen so many times: these circular arguments have no beginning nor end…therefor no cause. ??? Susma is clearly intent on circumventing logic. He repeats ad nauseam that nothing can have a beginning without a cause except his version of God: he states this with the usual self-serving arrogance typical of mystics who create false realities
The answer is because God has no beginning, He always exists, even before time and space at all began to exist – from His creation
Mystics like him call on us to relinquish our capacity to think, and by thinking rationally to integrate reality. Mysticism requires a person instead to believe or have faith in whatever the mystic wishes to promote. In other words it is the sacrifice of man’s mind to the undefined, the metaphysical; a denial of reality.
Due to one of the fundamental assumptions about his god - omnipotence - the Christian cannot really know within the constraints of theology if the universe was caused or not. Simply because:
An almighty god can make a universe without a cause, or even without being the cause.
Sounds like special pleading to me. U assume that the “creator” is conscious intelligence that created the universe on purpose.
It may be that there is a super universe that satisfies the two properties of being eternal and the ultimate causer that randomly creates universes when the circumstances are correct with different properties.
Do you have experience with creating universes? I mean I have experience with creating chocolate brownies but that doesn’t mean I have experience with creating nuclear reactors. Similarly you may have experience with fixing airplanes, but that doesn’t mean you’re qualified to make hard assertions about the creation of the universe.
So, the universe has need of a cause which we call creator.
Based on what? You have absolutely no proof of that. None, zero, zip. You can assert it all you want, but without proof no-one here is just going to take your word for it. If I were that impressionable I’d be following a cult leader claiming to be the second coming of Jesus around this very moment.
You will ask the question, and why does God not need a cause?
Damn straight. You’re doing some epic Special Pleading (Yes I want you to click that link) here. You have 1 set of criteria you claim is absolute for everything, but then a moment later you tell us God violates that very criteria… which leads me to a question for you…
So, what exactly is your difficulty with the concept of a being that has no beginning but exists, period, and is the cause of everything with a beginning?
So, what exactly is your difficulty with the concept of a universe that has no cause?
This is the same question isn’t it? a thing (be it universe or being) that doesn’t have a cause. If one is possible, the other has to be also. Otherwise your logic is fallacious, as pointed out in link above.
Tell me, is the concept of a being without a beginning an invalid concept?
Nope, if there were evidence for it I would believe it, but neither is a universe without a cause an invalid concept.
You cannot accept that concept to be a valid concept, a being without a beginning?
Pray tell me why.
Oh, but I can accept it as a possibility. YOU are the one having difficulty accepting a universe without a cause as a possibility. Which is an equally valid concept. Wait, I actually don’t mean that. We have evidence for a universe existing. We have no evidence for a cause of that universe existing. And even less (yes, less than zero) evidence for that cause being in the form of a “being” of any kind. And thricely even less evidence of that being having the properties of your particular magical man in the sky. So the two theories are not equally valid because the former has some evidence pointing to it’s possibility, while the latter is riddled with unfounded logical leaps and bounds, all requiring mountains of evidence.
I might be mistaken, but I get the impression that you want to portray your argument as though the thoughts expressed therein are yours and original. Clearly this is not the case: what you are presenting to us is nothing other than premises from the Kalām Cosmological Argument, as Mefiante has already pointed out. If you naively expected us to be unfamiliar with this argument, I have to disappoint you. It was discussed at great length on this forum – see here.
The concept of ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing nothing comes) is usually attributed to Parmenides (c. 500 BCE). Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) argued from this premise that the universe must be eternal. Mohammed al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111) adapted this argument, presuming the universe to have a beginning and thus arguing that it must have a cause, i.e. the Kalām Cosmological Argument. In the West, this argument was popularized by William Lane Craig (1924 – 2011), especially after the Big Bang Theory became increasingly accepted cosmology.
The format of the Kalām Cosmological Argument is:
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.
This “cause” is then presented as a creator, which in turn is presented as a god, usually with attributes corresponding to the presenter’s religion.
There are several shortcomings in the Kalām Cosmological Argument:
The principal objection is that the first premise is unproven. From casual observation it would appear that everything with a beginning has a cause. Extrapolating this to the origin of the universe would be a misapplication. At the point of the Big Bang the laws of physics particular to this universe as we know it cease. On a sub-atomic level we are also now aware of particles popping into and out of existence. Theoretically universes might behave in a similar manner. Simply repeatedly restating the first premise will not advance the argument.
Even if it were possible to prove that the universe has an external cause, it would still fall short of establishing the existence of a sentient creator.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument is too flawed to prove the existence of a creator, let alone a god or the Hellenic, Muslim or Christian concept thereof.
Forgive my pedantry, but WLC also added to it in an attempt to put its first premiss on what he thought was a firmer logical foundation by way of a more rigorous formalism. In essence, WLC’s version asserts that the first premiss is true because any finite chain of causes must begin with a first one; or conversely, that only an infinite chain of causes can be without an initial cause. Not that it adds much to the soundness of the argument, but there it is anyway.
The Aristotelian cosmological argument is based on the fact that a finite causal chain would require a first cause whereas an infinite one would not.
Aristotle's famous argument was contrary to the atomist's depiction of a non-eternal cosmos which, he argued, would require an efficient first cause, a notion that Aristotle took to demonstrate a critical flaw in their reasoning.
It is, as you say, pedantry, but I am inclined to credit Aristotle rather than Craig for the origin of this point.
You are right, of course. WLC merely took Aristotle’s First Cause argument and incorporated it into the classical Kalām. Such are the subtle vagaries of highbrow theology.
Dear fellow posters here, so that we will not be going in a circle, I will just concentrate on two statements on which I am asking you for your comments:
Science tells us that the universe has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
You agree to that? if so, then no more discussion about that; otherwise give your comments.
Everything with a beginning has a cause.
You agree to that? if so, then no more discussion about that; otherwise give your comments.
When you hold that you have to give your comments, please be concise and precise and no need to bring in so many things which are not relevant.
And yes, forgive me, but please just write your comments in 50 words or less, because when you do have something relevant, definite, concise, and precise to say and you know it clearly, you can always reduce your words to just 50 or less.
No. In previous posts you were asked to explain how this claim (while ostensibly often true in the observable universe) can be extrapolated to also hold true for the weird conditions that abounded just after the origin of the universe, or just “before” the origin, of which we can know nothing. You were also provided with examples of things that originate without an obvious cause. You have not commented on either. Maybe you should go back and read everything properly.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
One more time:
Everything with a beginning does not necessarily have a cause.
