• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the Universe need a Cause?

Firestorm77

Member
Bare with me:


If :


Infinity - 1 = Infinity

Infinity - 1000 = Infinity

Infinity minus any number is Infinity.


Then Infinity is a mathematical construct or concept that cannot be exported into our world; Infinity can not "actually" exist.

Therefore Infinity is "Potential", and not "Actual".

The world exists, then the world is "actual", which implies that the Universe cannot be Infinite since the concept of Infinity is Potential and not actual.

Anything that is not infinite must have had a beginning, and for anything to begin to exist from nothing it needs a Cause. The Cause is the Creator of the Universe.


Now Is the question "who caused the Creator" valid?


Not at all: If we were to assume that there should be infinite causes then there will be no effect, nothing will begin to exist. For example, If i needed to take permission from someone to perform a certain action, and that someone needs to take permission from someone else, and it goes all the way to an infinite number of persons (or causes), then the permission will not be initiated and the action will not take place. If we applied this concept to the Universe, then the Universe could have never existed.


For the Universe to Exist from nothing; that singularity of infinite density and zero volume (nothingness) that exploded into shaping our fine tuned universe, it must have a Cause; The Creator. God.

ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. Davies adds "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."
 

outhouse

Atheistically
your arguements are all flawed and not followed by a growing number of scientist.

creation is a myth. end of story. The only people that follow creation are those who's imaginations run wild! evident in your post.
 
I'll summarise and address your claims

The creator doesn't need a cause but the begining of the universe does - This is obviously inconsistant and your talk of infinities does nothing to change this. We also do not know for sure that the universe had a begining.

The universe is fune-tuned for life - If the constants of the universe were different then you wouldn't exist so its not suprising that you find yourself in a universe which has constants that resulted in your existance.

Stars are incapable of producing sufficient carbon - When a theory doesn't conform to observations then it means that the theory is wrong. Only when a theory had been repeatedly confirmed and then later found not to match observations would I seriously consider the possibility that there was something wrong with the observations themselves.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I think the universe had a cause. And it's likely that that cause was an effect of another cause.

When I think of the "First Cause", I don't think of something that was there first that caused the first ever effect, without ever having a cause of its own, but rather something which is ALWAYS there, and is the Cause of everything that ever happened. I personally think that this thing would most likely exist at the smallest possible level of existence, but I only have a VERY basic knowledge of physics and especially how atomic and sub-atomic particles work, so I could be wrong in my speculation that such a level even exists. After all, for all I know, there may be no limit to how small you can go (or humanity could go extinct before scientists find it.) I would appreciate if anyone more knowledgeable in physics could correct me.

Does this thing have a consciousness? I.E., is this Cause self-aware? If we're talking about consciousness like our own, then certainly not, because that's dependent on having a complex brain, and this Cause, by how I define it, would be as simple as absolutely possible. Since the English word "consciousness" only refers to brain-dependent self-awareness, then it doesn't have what we would define as "consciousness" unless we really stretched the word.

Because of all this, I'd seriously hesitate to call this Cause a "Creator," since that would imply deliberation, which I don't think my model really allows for.
 
Last edited:

Debunker

Active Member
Bare with me:

If :

Infinity - 1 = Infinity

Infinity - 1000 = Infinity

Infinity minus any number is Infinity.

Then Infinity is a mathematical construct or concept that cannot be exported into our world; Infinity can not "actually" exist.

Therefore Infinity is "Potential", and not "Actual".

The world exists, then the world is "actual", which implies that the Universe cannot be Infinite since the concept of Infinity is Potential and not actual.

Anything that is not infinite must have had a beginning, and for anything to begin to exist from nothing it needs a Cause. The Cause is the Creator of the Universe.

Now Is the question "who caused the Creator" valid?

Not at all: If we were to assume that there should be infinite causes then there will be no effect, nothing will begin to exist. For example, If i needed to take permission from someone to perform a certain action, and that someone needs to take permission from someone else, and it goes all the way to an infinite number of persons (or causes), then the permission will not be initiated and the action will not take place. If we applied this concept to the Universe, then the Universe could have never existed.

For the Universe to Exist from nothing; that singularity of infinite density and zero volume (nothingness) that exploded into shaping our fine tuned universe, it must have a Cause; The Creator. God.

ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. Davies adds "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."

You conclusions are fine. Your opening statements needs some adjustment, if these remarks represent your premises to your logic,IMO.
Then Infinity is a mathematical construct or concept that cannot be exported into our world; Infinity can not "actually" exist.
Infinity can not be measure; therefore, it is not a math mathematical construct. The universe is not infiltrate because at some point in eternity, God created the universe but God did not eliminate infinity, If God had eliminated infinity, none of us would be here. I do not know what your religion teaches concerning creation but probably teaches the same as my religion. I am a Christian and we believe that God inhabits eternity. Both God and eternity are eternal. Infinity does actually exist or else God could not inhabit it.

With your next statement, you attempt to make a correction in this logic but it is still a little stretch, which is easily corrected.
The world exists, then the world is "actual", which implies that the Universe cannot be Infinite since the concept of Infinity is Potential and not actual.
Infinity is "not" potential. God alone is potential and God is actual. I am an ontologicalist like you and I know that eternity did not create but God did have that potential. Unbelievers will adopt the view that God is not
needed to explain creation unless we make sure that there is this distinction.

Otherwise, I really like your thread and I am looking forward to reading more.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I "bared" with you until you completely failed to justify the statement "therefore infinity is potential, not actual". Then I didn't bother to read the rest. Here's a tip: don't start out as if you intend to make a logical argument if what you really mean to do is just toss out a bunch of fuzzy thinking as preable to a copy-paste from a creationist website. It gets my hopes up, then dashes them ever so cruelly.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."
So... if we had different initial conditions, then things would be different. But we didn't, so things are the way they are.

Well... yeah, but so what? If the universe we have has low likelihood, then this doesn't really mean anything unless we assume that this was the intended outcome when the universe was created. Do you have any reason to think that it was?

BTW - how do you even know what the likelihood of this universe is? Maybe there are physical laws at play that we don't understand. What is the range of possible universe characteristics, and how do you know that they were possible?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
So... if we had different initial conditions, then things would be different. But we didn't, so things are the way they are.

Well... yeah, but so what? If the universe we have has low likelihood, then this doesn't really mean anything unless we assume that this was the intended outcome when the universe was created. Do you have any reason to think that it was?

BTW - how do you even know what the likelihood of this universe is? Maybe there are physical laws at play that we don't understand. What is the range of possible universe characteristics, and how do you know that they were possible?


The range of possibilities is infinite, but the probability of something that has already happened happening is nevertheless 100%.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Other than natural gravitational forces, no, there is no cause. Try to deal with it.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Therefore Infinity is "Potential", and not "Actual".
The vast majority of everything is potential, as Wikipedia elaborates on. Quarks, the fundamental building blocks of matter, have comparatively small mass. The force holding the quarks together contributes the majority of the mass of protons and neutrons, and thus the majority of the mass of everything.

Infinity can not be measure; therefore, it is not a math mathematical construct.
No. Multiple sizes of infinity appear in abstract mathematics quite frequently.
 

Debunker

Active Member
The vast majority of everything is potential, as Wikipedia elaborates on. Quarks, the fundamental building blocks of matter, have comparatively small mass. The force holding the quarks together contributes the majority of the mass of protons and neutrons, and thus the majority of the mass of everything.


No. Multiple sizes of infinity appear in abstract mathematics quite frequently.

INTERESTING! Name me a few to think about.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
From my perspective the universe IS the creator, the firstborn of the physical world, the offspring of the transcendent Atum himself when the Cosmos emerged from within the Nu (void).
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
the fact is that type of God does not exist. A God that exist certainly left clues and evidence of his existence.

You're starting with a presupposition.....1) that a god does exist, 2) ascribing the current evidence to that god.

I'm curious as to what clues (evidence) points to a god. May be you can share that with us.
 
Top