The Most Basic Question...

[Brian2]

But you ignored the logic supplied by @InChrist, which is that "things which exist point to a cause." So if you posit a "creator that was not created, had no cause," then you admit that such a thing cannot exist. That is the essential logic of this argument.

The only way out of it is to decide that there are two kinds of existing things -- the ones that need to be caused and the ones that don't. But you'll never find a rational basis to build that edifice on.

Yes things that exists point to a cause but I imagine you will find that @InChrist would not take it ad infinitum as you want to. That option does not work imo and for what I see as rational reasons.
But there are always people who disagree and come up with things like the B theory of time which seems to ignore cause and effect as pointing to a direction of time and be off with the fairies itself imo.

 

[Willamena]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

If there were nothing there would be no question, "Why is there something?" So there is something because there is not nothing.

"Cause" has nothing to do with it. It's a metaphysical issue.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If there were nothing there would be no question, "Why is there something?" So there is something because there is not nothing.

"Cause" has nothing to do with it. It's a metaphysical issue.

Are metaphysical things not subject to cause and effect?

 

[Willamena]

Are metaphysical things not subject to cause and effect?

Metaphysics is the study (the question) of what is, not why it is. One might conflate the two, but there is no need to conflate to two.

 

[Brian2]

If there were nothing there would be no question, "Why is there something?" So there is something because there is not nothing.

"Cause" has nothing to do with it. It's a metaphysical issue.

Are you saying that the "why" question has to do with any reason that the first cause might have had to cause things, if there was a reason?

 

[InChrist]

And if a Creator exists, by precisely the same logic, that points to a cause for said Creator -- in other words, a Creator Creator. And so on ad infinitum.

Not exactly, since the biblical revelation to humanity concerning the nature of the Creator, is that this Creator is eternal. Created, finite things which have a beginning require a Creator. An eternal, infinite Being with no beginning doesn’t.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

Everyone should ponder this question at some point, it leads to discovery about how you think and what you believe., Ultimately I am not sure it can ever even be answered. My best guess is that nothing cannot exist for some reason, maybe time has to exist. Who knows. Positing a god does not answer the question of why that god exists in the first place. It is indeed mindboggling.

 

[Brian2]

Everyone should ponder this question at some point, it leads to discovery about how you think and what you believe., Ultimately I am not sure it can ever even be answered. My best guess is that nothing cannot exist for some reason, maybe time has to exist. Who knows. Positing a god does not answer the question of why that god exists in the first place. It is indeed mindboggling.

Positing a first cause is reasonable and a first cause has not beginning and so just is and does not need a reason to exist.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Positing a first cause is reasonable and a first cause has not beginning and so just is and does not need a reason to exist.

This is special pleading. It does not answer the question as to why anything exists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Positing a first cause is reasonable and a first cause has not beginning and so just is and does not need a reason to exist.

And perhaps this is your first step towards gullibility?

 

[Brian2]

And perhaps this is your first step towards gullibility?

No I have been gullible for years.
Do you have a problem with my sentence apart from the grammar or spelling?
Brian2 said: Positing a first cause is reasonable and a first cause has not beginning and so just is and does not need a reason to exist.

 

[Brian2]

This is special pleading. It does not answer the question as to why anything exists.

Well a first cause is a special case, different to anything else and so of course it has special pleading.
Reasoning the existence of this first cause explains the existence of everything else, even though it does not tell us why the first cause caused everything else to exist, unless the first cause tells us why it caused everything else to exist.
So we still don't know why at this point in our thinking, just as we don't know why the first cause exists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No I have been gullible for years.
Do you have a problem with my sentence apart from the grammar or spelling?
Brian2 said: Positing a first cause is reasonable and a first cause has not beginning and so just is and does not need a reason to exist.

Because it makes about as much sense as stating I believe this. Why would anything have a first cause and not being part of the causal relationship to all other things? God just being? Just a pronouncement.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well a first cause is a special case, different to anything else and so of course it has special pleading.
Reasoning the existence of this first cause explains the existence of everything else, even though it does not tell us why the first cause caused everything else to exist, unless the first cause tells us why it caused everything else to exist.
So we still don't know why at this point in our thinking, just as we don't know why the first cause exists.

Wasn't that the question? Why anything exists? Why should a first cause exist in the first place.

 

[Brian2]

Because it makes about as much sense as stating I believe this. Why would anything have a first cause and not being part of the causal relationship to all other things? God just being? Just a pronouncement.

The first cause is the start of the causal chain. The causal chain cannot go to infinity in the past or we would not be here yet.
Once you see that, then you should see that there is no cause to the first cause, and this first cause must be timeless, exist outside of time.

 

[Brian2]

Wasn't that the question? Why anything exists? Why should a first cause exist in the first place.

Yes, we don't know why anything should exist in the first place. Well we know that things that had a cause exist because of that cause. But why the first cause exists? I don't know.

 

[Heyo]

and this first cause must be timeless, exist outside of time.

I don't think so. At least it has a fixed end date. It ceases to exist after causing the universe, at least in an orderly universe.

 

[Ella S.]

I have never seen anything that exists which has been caused to exist. Everything I have witnessed has merely been a re-arrangement of what already existed. If you caused something to exist, you would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is because everything that exists is an arrangement of energy, so when we are "creating" or "destroying" something we are actually not creating or destroying anything but merely re-arranging energy.

Causation itself is also contingent upon time existing, because a cause is partially defined by the fact that it precedes its effect in time. A cause cannot happen simultaneously or after its effect. This is central to the laws of causation. All causes therefore must take place within a specific point in time which precedes its corresponding effect.

This is something we are all familiar with. A baseball will not fly into the air before you hit it with a bat; you must hit with the bat first in order for it to then fly away. Likewise, the ball is not already flying through the air when you hit it. The ball only begins flying after the momentum from the bat has been transferred into the ball.

Since a cause refers to a particular point in time, they require a timeline that they can exist as a point on. If you hit a baseball with a bat, then that happens at a specific time, such as August 1, 1934 at 4:02 p.m. The effect on the ball is a few nanoseconds later, "around" the same point in time but directly after it.

So at what point on a timeline could the cause of the timeline be? It can't be T=0 because then the cause would be simultaneous with its effect. It can't be T=-1 because that does not refer to a valid point in time. How can a cause be "before" time if "before" refers to a point in time preceding another point in time? The answer: it can't. It's literally impossible.

Our universe is composed of spacetime and the energy arranged within spacetime, so it includes all causes and effects within our timeline. As such, our universe cannot have been caused, because causes can only exist within the universe itself and you cannot have a cause without a universe.

Thus, there is no intelligent creator of the universe, because our universe cannot have been created. Therefore, God (when defined as the creator of the universe) is impossible. Therefore, we can say that we know with absolute certainty that there is no God.

 

[Brian2]

I don't think so. At least it has a fixed end date. It ceases to exist after causing the universe, at least in an orderly universe.

I don't cease to exist after I do a post, so God doesn't need to cease to exist after causing things to exist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are we trying to answer the question, “How did the universe come into existence?” Or the distinct question “Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?”

The first of these questions is the domain of astrophysics, the second, of philosophy and theology. These domains do inevitably overlap, despite the distrust some physicists and philosophers appear to have for each other.

The common ground here is our common humanity, and the single quality which marks us out as most obviously human, is the miraculous richness, complexity, and sheer soaring glory of human consciousness.

Positioned midway, in terms of perspective and scale, between the atoms and the stars, we are the universe looking into and out at itself. And trying to understand itself, and us, and everything around and within us. From earliest times we have done this this through storytelling, observation, intuition, contemplation, revelation, inspiration, and the examination of all that we see, feel, hear and imagine.

Is the creative use of the intellect enough to justify a life? Not on it’s own, no. We have a responsibility, any moral philosopher will tell you, to be kind; to look after each other, and the garden of earthly delights we are set down in.