First cause

[night912]

It's possible, but I see it as a way of dodging the issue of "Why something rather than nothing."

It's not dodging the issue, it actually answers it. There was always something there, that's why it's impossible for nothing being there.

Saying "There's never been nothing" doesn't sit right.

Why is that? If something was always there, anything that you decide to replace it with is still "something," it doesn't matter if it's god, another universe, etc. If there was nothing there, then there cannot be something here now.

a cycling system which creates dinosaurs,
butterflies and people but then dissolves it all down to start again. Time and calendars set to zero
and then start again.
IMO this idea is just a way to fool ordinary folk into thinking you have the answer how the universe
came to be.

If the universe is infinite, then the universe never came to be, because it was always there, no beginning.

The next question they could ask you is, "But why?"

Repeat the same answer.

The next question they could ask you is, "But why?"

Repeat the same answer.

It's not trying to fool others, it's explaining it to others who don't understand it. Once they understand and/or accept the answer, they will no longer have the need to ask "why?" When you are not fooling yourself, that's when you will realize that the answer is not and was never trying to fool you.

 

[Polymath257]

It's possible, but I see it as a way of dodging the issue of "Why something rather than nothing."

OK, and what is your proposal for answering why there is something rather than nothing? Saying there is a supernatural cause doesn't fix that issue: it just pushes it back to why there is a supernatural. Saying there is a first cause doesn't fix the issue: the question of why that first cause exists is still an issue.

Saying "There's never been nothing" doesn't sit right.

Why not? You invoke it for some deity, don't you? You say God has always existed: in other words there has never been nothing. All you have done is push back the basic question.

Sure, human comprehension plays little
part in the universe - but this one is beyond the pale - a cycling system which creates dinosaurs,
butterflies and people but then dissolves it all down to start again. Time and calendars set to zero
and then start again.
IMO this idea is just a way to fool ordinary folk into thinking you have the answer how the universe
came to be. The next question they could ask you is, "But why?"

I'm not advocating a cyclic universe, by the way. It is one possibility, but not the only one. It is simply possible that time goes infinitely into the past and that the universe has existed for all time. And it is possible for that to happen without the universe being cyclic.

I can point out that you are rejecting this as a possibility even though many strong thinkers over time have seen it as the most likely possibility. And the only reason so far you have given for that rejection is that you don't like it as a possibility. Which is your right, of course, but it doesn't prove your case.

 

[Aman Uensis]

Is there something wrong with believing in infinite chain of causes?

Is it confusing for people? Too mysterious?

Both. Infinity causes problems for both science and God. So we would much rather ignore it than acknowledge it perhaps plays a greater role in all of this.

 

[Thief]

I watched a fellow named....Kaku
scratch an equation unto a chalkboard that ends with...
infinity+infinity+infinity…….infinitely
as the sum

he then makes a thoughtful pose for the camera as he self narrates
Theoretical physicists have a 'problem' with infinity

 

[Aman Uensis]

Infinity renders the argument moot, but not with regards to a firm distinction between either God or random cause - it actually binds the two. If you believe in God, there's always the possibility that God was born of a random process since there is no beginning to existence. But then there is always the possibility that random cause isn't so random but one made with an intent behind it. And so forth, into eternity. If you believe that existence is infinite, then there can be no actual answer, not even from God.

That's what infinity does to the argument.

 

[night912]

No need to shout.
However you look at it - sideways, upside down, you can't get away from the fact that the universe began.
Whether there were millions upon millions of universes created is irrelevant. All that does is create an infinite regression - similar to what you are arguing against -, and does not address, nor dismiss, the question of first cause.

If the universe is infinite or having an infinite amount of regression, then the answer do address the question of first cause. The answer is, there was no first cause. However you look at it - sideways, upside down, forwards, backwards, if the universe is infinite, you will not find where it began because there was never a beginning.

Here's something that can help.
Take a look at a circle. Now, point to the spot where the circle began or where it started.

 

[Polymath257]

Both. Infinity causes problems for both science and God. So we would much rather ignore it than acknowledge it perhaps plays a greater role in all of this.

What do you see as the problems it causes?

Are you sure they haven't been resolved by modern math?

 

[Polymath257]

Infinity renders the argument moot, but not with regards to a firm distinction between either God or random cause - it actually binds the two. If you believe in God, there's always the possibility that God was born of a random process since there is no beginning to existence. But then there is always the possibility that random cause isn't so random but one made with an intent behind it. And so forth, into eternity. If you believe that existence is infinite, then there can be no actual answer, not even from God.

That's what infinity does to the argument.

Is that bad?

It seems that, in fact, there can be no 'reason' why there is 'something' rather than 'nothing'. Logic alone cannot justify that there is something that exists. At most, it can use the existence of one thing to prove the existence of another.

So, at some point you need to just admit that there is something that 'simply exists'. And I see no reason to assume it is anything other than the universe itself. Clearly it *does* exist. And if anything exists, then the universe does.

 

[McBell]

What makes you think that? Why do think that the laws of the "outside" world cannot be the same as "our" world? We don't know what it's like "outside" therefore we cannot give it any kind of property that we can conceive. Once we do that or put something "outside" then it is once again bound by our laws or at least whatever concept that we put out there is bound by our laws.

Its just fancy talk for "God is an exception"

 

[night912]

Its just fancy talk for "God is an exception"

How so? Because there is a key difference between the two.

 

[McBell]

How so? Because there is a key difference between the two.

Because just like with "GodDidIt", the goal is not to learn the how or what or why.
The goal is to get to a place in where they start making exceptions.

In other words, it is merely a search for a gap in which to place their god.
What better place than a place where no one can refute it.

 

[Polymath257]

How so? Because there is a key difference between the two.

I disagree. It *still* doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. It just pushes back the 'something' that is not explained to some deity.

 

[Polymath257]

Rules and exceptions apply only to our world.
Whatever lies "out there" where science reckons nothing lies,
all bets are off. Our world is super-weird - whatever is outside
of the laws of physics and beyond our comprehension cannot
have rules applying to it.

Why not?

So, you agree that there is no 'reason' once you get to a situation where no rules apply? In particular, there is still no reason why there is something instead of nothing, right?

 

[night912]

I disagree. It *still* doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. It just pushes back the 'something' that is not explained to some deity.

Actually, it does. It might not be what you wanted, but it does explain why there is something and not nothing. And I don't even know how you got god from the explanation.

Which part of the explanation did you not understand about why it cannot be nothing? That way I can try to explain it differently so you can understand.

 

[night912]

Because just like with "GodDidIt", the goal is not to learn the how or what or why.
The goal is to get to a place in where they start making exceptions.

In other words, it is merely a search for a gap in which to place their god.
What better place than a place where no one can refute it.

No, it did explained it. But from your comment, I'll explain why you are not accepting the explanation. You are not looking for the how, what, and why, which should be the goal for a question that that explains something that supposedly you don't have the answer to. You already have an answer and just waiting for someone to present an answer that you have. In other words, you already reserved a gap for your answer to fit in. If you claim to not know the answer to your question, how come you already know that it MUST like the way you want it to be? So basically, you are staring at your designated gap that you've prepared, and just waiting for the the answer to slip right in.

The whole point of seeking an explanation is to follow the steps and ends wherever the answer lies, they shouldn't be waiting for it to reach where they want it. So did you even follow my explanation?

 

[MNoBody]

the past and the future are abstractions
Now is the only "real" we have.
the gift of the Present.

 

[Shad]

Is the post you referred to about metaphysics?

Aristotelian metaphysics to be specific.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[PruePhillip]

Why not?

So, you agree that there is no 'reason' once you get to a situation where no rules apply? In particular, there is still no reason why there is something instead of nothing, right?

Cause, effect, physics, time, mathematics, logic etc are things
about OUR universe. When it comes to this "impossible" realm
outside our own ALL BETS ARE OFF. Asking the questions of
"who made God" are pointless.
Asking how any things works and where it comes from are
perfectly valid questions in this universe-multiverse only. And
if you insist on expecting answers for what lies outside then
you must answer which direction is north at the north pole, and
what happened before there was time, and how to move when
there is no space.

 

[PruePhillip]

the past and the future are abstractions
Now is the only "real" we have.
the gift of the Present.
View attachment 39182

That's how dogs see the universe.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's not dodging the issue, it actually answers it. There was always something there, that's why it's impossible for nothing being there.


Why is that? If something was always there, anything that you decide to replace it with is still "something," it doesn't matter if it's god, another universe, etc. If there was nothing there, then there cannot be something here now.


If the universe is infinite, then the universe never came to be, because it was always there, no beginning.


Repeat the same answer.


Repeat the same answer.

It's not trying to fool others, it's explaining it to others who don't understand it. Once they understand and/or accept the answer, they will no longer have the need to ask "why?" When you are not fooling yourself, that's when you will realize that the answer is not and was never trying to fool you.

As far as we can tell, the universe is finite. It has a beginning. It won't have an end
but there will be the "heat death" and receding horizons. That's current cosmology
which most likely will be something different in 10 years.
A universe which has always been here avoids the question of how it came to be
here. Nor does it address the question of WHY it is here.