'Uncaused agency' regarding origins of universe

[Moonshine]

Talking about the origin of the universe: I don't know how to argue the following point:

I am agnostic as to the origin of the universe. A theist I know argues that logically the universe must be created (not eternal), by an uncaused cause, a creator.... citing 'cause and effect' as the reason that this must logiocally be so..... the universe could not have caused itself out of nothing because that is illogical, if there is truly nothing then there can be no agent to cause anything, nothing will always remain nothing. And yet, we are here, and thus due to 'cause and effect', the universe is an effect and so must have been caused, and therefore that cause must have been not part of the physical universe and must itself have been uncaused.

ANd so my counter argument is.... so if we speak of 'universe' as encompassing EVERYTHING then god (or whatever the 'uncaused' agent is) is SOMETHING and is thus part of that everything (we simply must widen the bounds of what we have defined as universe, as not limited to physical)....so inventing such an explanation as God (as immaterial outside of material) doesn't actually resolve the paradox of 'first cause' or eternity, and substance -----, because there is still the question "then what caused god"? Simply just to plead a special case that "god is eternal, uncaused", does not explain anything more than saying "the physical universe is eternal, uncaused", because they are both SOMETHING and even if they are different categories of 'something' you still have not provided a basis to say that one substance (immaterial) is any more amenable to being eternal that the other substance (physical material). So, what is your basis here? Do you have one? ----- and his reply is, the physical universe operates according to 'cause and effect', we can see this, we base everything upon this as a consistent behaviour of physical things. The uncaused agent, by defintion of forfilling the necesasry criteria for creating the physical, is NOT physical and is not subject to cause and effect (it is uncaused), and why should it be in the same way that the physical universe is.... it is NOT physical, so why expect it to be subject to physical laws, it is only logical to expect physical things to be subject to laws observed to pertain to physical things. He says to think otherwise is illogical.

And I don't know what's wrong with his logic? It doesn't satisfy me, I feel hoodwinked, but I can't see why, and I do think he has a point. Any of you good people help me?

[Halfcentaur]

The Big Bang has never been posited as something coming from nothing. The theist you refer to is misinformed about what he is debating. The universe could very well have come about from some manner of eternal state. The idea that the most complicated thing possible always existed eternally, which we call a god, seems illogical. Rather, consider a very simple eternal collection of components that somehow given eternity eventually interacted in a way that gave rise to more complexity, perhaps in a never ending eternal cycle. There are several abstract theories I've come across concerning pre Big Bang conditions. The problem is, theists seem to think everything should be explainable within human logic, where clearly we see things that are not logical happening in the natural world, for instance in quantum mechanics.
Gods are a human construct born of superstition. We saw spirits and gods in all things at one time, but the more we learn of natural processes, the less we see these gods. No longer is there a god for doorways, a god for war, or gods of wine. Gods are nothing but a concept that comes from psychology. There is no logic in the idea of beings able to know and do anything and everything.

[Foster Zygote]

The common misconception regarding Big Bang cosmology is that the universe sprang into existence ex nihilo; that there was some eternity of nothingness prior to the event and then everything just popped into existence. All the Big Bang theory says so far is that at one point in space/time the universe existed in an extremely hot, dense state. The universe didn't "explode" into anything. There wasn't a big empty space that matter and energy expanded into. Space and time also expanded with the Big Bang. So space/time may very well be finite yet unbounded, like the surface of a sphere. So the concept of "before the Big Bang" may be as invalid as the concept of "north of the North Pole". The idea that the universe had a beginning is likely completely wrong.

[Pure Argent]

Talking about the origin of the universe: I don't know how to argue the following point:

I am agnostic as to the origin of the universe. A theist I know argues that logically the universe must be created (not eternal), by an uncaused cause, a creator.... citing 'cause and effect' as the reason that this must logiocally be so..... the universe could not have caused itself out of nothing because that is illogical, if there is truly nothing then there can be no agent to cause anything, nothing will always remain nothing. And yet, we are here, and thus due to 'cause and effect', the universe is an effect and so must have been caused, and therefore that cause must have been not part of the physical universe and must itself have been uncaused.

ANd so my counter argument is.... so if we speak of 'universe' as encompassing EVERYTHING then god (or whatever the 'uncaused' agent is) is SOMETHING and is thus part of that everything (we simply must widen the bounds of what we have defined as universe, as not limited to physical)....so inventing such an explanation as God (as immaterial outside of material) doesn't actually resolve the paradox of 'first cause' or eternity, and substance -----, because there is still the question "then what caused god"? Simply just to plead a special case that "god is eternal, uncaused", does not explain anything more than saying "the physical universe is eternal, uncaused", because they are both SOMETHING and even if they are different categories of 'something' you still have not provided a basis to say that one substance (immaterial) is any more amenable to being eternal that the other substance (physical material). So, what is your basis here? Do you have one? ----- and his reply is, the physical universe operates according to 'cause and effect', we can see this, we base everything upon this as a consistent behaviour of physical things. The uncaused agent, by defintion of forfilling the necesasry criteria for creating the physical, is NOT physical and is not subject to cause and effect (it is uncaused), and why should it be in the same way that the physical universe is.... it is NOT physical, so why expect it to be subject to physical laws, it is only logical to expect physical things to be subject to laws observed to pertain to physical things. He says to think otherwise is illogical.

And I don't know what's wrong with his logic? It doesn't satisfy me, I feel hoodwinked, but I can't see why, and I do think he has a point. Any of you good people help me?

I posted a reply to this in another thread, but here goes again.

Time does not necessarily apply outside the universe. Therefore, cause and effect does not necessarily apply outside the universe. Therefore, the universe does not necessarily have to have a cause.

[KingMerv00]

The good ol' First Cause argument never did anything for me for a simple reason: Even if you convince me there must be a first cause, you still have no reason to think the cause is intelligent.

[Dancing David]

The answer is "We don't know"

[Moonshine]

Thanks for the replies (here and in other thread). I just can't get my head around this, so I will have a little think about it when it is more quiet before gettng back.

"We don't know"... to be clear, this is what I think too, but the thiest's claim is that it is illogical not to rule out the 'eternal / no cause' option for the physical material of the universe.... the only logical position is to accept that it must be caused, and therefore caused by a non-physical agent existing external to that space/time and that (because it is not physical) this agent itself can be uncaused.

Just wanted to add, myself I am not agnostic as to the gods of religions or regarding intervention in earthly matters, I am athiest in this. My agnosticism only pertains to the question of origin of everything we see around us... stuff.

[Halfcentaur]

It's simple to get your head around. The universe very well could have always existed in one state or another, eternally.

What's not fair is that their creator get's a free pass for just being, uncaused. This is just playing word games and pretending God is a get out of jail free card. It's just as logical to ask "Where did God come from?" as it is the universe. What came before God is something most every 5 year old child realizes.

[I Ratant]

"We don't know" and "it must be caused" are universes apart.
The former is as close as it's likely to get, intellectually.
The latter is wishful thinking to give a meaning to everything.

[Hokulele]

In addition, his claim about ”cause and effect" is simply wrong. I can't post links right now, but ask him what causes radioactive decay. As far as I know, there is currently no known cause for it. We can explain the mechanism, but not what triggers it.

Unless, of course, that is some sort of god too...

[Moonshine]

...What's not fair is that their creator get's a free pass for just being, uncaused. This is just playing word games and pretending God is a get out of jail free card. It's just as logical to ask "Where did God come from?" as it is the universe. What came before God is something most every 5 year old child realizes.

As far as I understand, the 'get out of jail card' is that the physical universe is..well, physical, and (this is the bit that has been objected to in replies here) therefore subject to physical laws such as cause and effect...ie it is illogical not to assume a cause. Whereas, god (or whatever you wish to call the non-physical causal agent) is, well, non-physical, and so is not subject to cause and effect physical law... and therefoe can be uncaused.

[KingMerv00]

As far as I understand, the 'get out of jail card' is that the physical universe is..well, physical, and (this is the bit that has been objected to in replies here) therefore subject to physical laws such as cause and effect...ie it is illogical not to assume a cause. Whereas, god (or whatever you wish to call the non-physical causal agent) is, well, non-physical, and so is not subject to cause and effect physical law... and therefoe can be uncaused.

Special pleading. Why do you allow a hypothetical God to be non-physical while not granting that to physical processes? Maybe there is some unexplained metaphysical law that exists outside of our perception of cause and effect that can create our universe.

Or maybe not. The answer is still "I don't know."

[Vorticity]

In addition, his claim about ”cause and effect" is simply wrong.

This.

...and his reply is, the physical universe operates according to 'cause and effect'...

His entire argument is based on a faulty premise. It has been known for about a century now that the universe is fundamentally acausal.

[Moonshine]

re special pleading..... not quite sure of the wording in your post KingMerv, but I have explained the basis upon which he is making his special pleading... he is basing his case on 'cause&effect' only NECESSARILY applies to physical bodies; non-physical could be different in nature and therefore could be uncaused. I suppose his argument comes down to "well SOMETHING along the line exists uncaused, in order for there to be anything at all.... and it is illogical to think that candidate is physical, the only logial candidate is non-physical".


This.

His entire argument is based on a faulty premise. It has been known for about a century now that the universe is fundamentally acausal.

Could you help me on this. I don't know about this.... I always thought cause and effect was a universal axiom that physical sciences are based upon. What has been known for a century exactly?

[Loss Leader]

the only logical position is to accept that it must be caused,



I don't understand why this position would be logical.

1. Everything that we know of has a cause
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe must have a cause.

The statement in 3 does not logically follow from 1 and 2. It is just as likely that 1 is wrong. In fact, 1 is demonstrably wrong because it contains a suppressed premise:

1a. Everything that we know of has a cause.
1b. We know of so many things that we can generalize that everything must have a cause.

Why would 1b necessarily be true? Millions of examples do not equal a rule. At best, they equal a theory. That theory may be strong enough that it can be applied to other circumstances, but only in hopes of being predictive, not with mathematical certainty.

Let me put it this way, and this example comes from Charles Babbage: Suppose I give you the sequence "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8..." and ask you what the next number in the sequence would be. You answer that it is "9." You have deduced that the rule I am following is "add 1 to the last number." However, is your answer logically necessary?

What if I told you that the next number in the sequence is "100"? You see, the rule wasn't "add 1 to the last number" at all. The rule was "Add 1 to the last number until you get to 8 and then jump to 100."

My rule is just as logical as the one you guessed. Why didn't you guess the correct rule? You didn't have enough information. Now, that's not your fault. There was no possible way you could have had enough information from the data I gave you. But, it doesn't mean that your answer of "9" was right, let alone logically necessary. It just means that your wrong answer is understandable.

There is no reason that the beginning of the universe cannot work like this. Although we know that everything we have seen so far has a cause, it does not follow that the rule must be that all things have a cause. It only follows that we can't be blamed for suspecting as much.

The agnostic approach to the beginning of the universe is that we do not have enough information to speculate. That's the logical answer.

[Dancing David]

That quantum mechanics is acausal.

[Vorticity]

Could you help me on this. I don't know about this.... I always thought cause and effect was a universal axiom that physical sciences are based upon. What has been known for a century exactly?


What David said:

That quantum mechanics is acausal.


Quantum mechanics is fundamentally acausal. In QM, sometimes things just happen. When a radioactive nucleus decays, what is it that causes it to decay at that precise time and in that precise way? Nothing. It's acausal. But it decays anyway.

If any part of a system is acausal, then the system as a whole is acausal. QM is acausal, therefore the universe is acausal.

Incidentally, even if this were not true, and causality were the rule, the guy's argument still wouldn't work. Causality would then be a property of events within the universe. There's no reason to assume it would apply to the universe itself.

[Pure Argent]

Incidentally, even if this were not true, and causality were the rule, the guy's argument still wouldn't work. Causality would then be a property of events within the universe. There's no reason to assume it would apply to the universe itself.

Exactly.

And another thing: we've got no evidence that cause and effect applies to anything coming into existence, because we haven't seen anything come into existence. The laws of conservation get in the way.

[marplots]

That quantum mechanics is acausal.

This bears repeating because it answers the question.

We have "rules" about nuclear decay that will allow us to predict what percentage of a radioactive element will decay in some time period. But these are descriptions only. They do not explain some cause -- there is no cause. A similar rule for the universe might be: Universes sometimes exist. This is a good rule. I will adopt it.

[Moonshine]

Thanks again for any inputs. Loss leader, I think that helps.

And yes, I am taking on borad the recurring point "Causality would then be a property of events within the universe. There's no reason to assume it would apply to the universe itself", and need to think about that more.

Re. Quantum mechanics... that seems illogical to a QM layman such as myslef: that something physical occurs without there having been any causative impetus from anything else at all.

Surely that is just 'random' rather than acausal?, ie we just arent able to observe it well enough or understand it well enough to explain it., but surely there is an unbroken physical chain of a process that is taking place?.... otherwise, this is magic isn't it?

Also I am wondering if 'uncaused' as in "well SOMETHING along the line exists uncaused, in order for there to be anything at all.... and it is illogical to think that candidate is physical, the only logial candidate is non-physical" really has the same meaning or significance as 'acausal' being used re. QM ? I don't know, just wondering.

[sphenisc]

If any part of a system is acausal, then the system as a whole is acausal. QM is acausal, therefore the universe is acausal.

...Causality would then be a property of events within the universe. There's no reason to assume it would apply to the universe itself.

Why is it okay to assume it in the acausal case but not the causal?

[Hokulele]

Re. Quantum mechanics... that seems illogical to a QM layman such as myslef: that something physical occurs without there having been any causative impetus from anything else at all.


QM isn't logical, which is what makes it so fun!

But seriously, radioactive decay is something we can observe that has no apparent trigger (in some cases, there are cases where it is triggered by neutrinos). By claiming that this is something that science hasn't figured out yet, but there has to be a cause, you are making the same argument as the theist in your OP.

There is no reason to assume everything must have a cause, just because most things have a cause. Between reading about radioactive decay and virtual particle pairs, I no longer have a problem with accepting things may be acausal.

[Vorticity]

If any part of a system is acausal, then the system as a whole is acausal. QM is acausal, therefore the universe is acausal.

...Causality would then be a property of events within the universe. There's no reason to assume it would apply to the universe itself.

Why is it okay to assume it in the acausal case but not the causal?

When I said "...therefore the universe is acausal.", I meant that processes within the universe are (according to our current understanding) fundamentally acausal.

As for the existence of the universe as a whole, I make no statement or assumption about its causailty or lack thereof.

[dasmiller]

The good ol' First Cause argument never did anything for me for a simple reason: Even if you convince me there must be a first cause, you still have no reason to think the cause is intelligent.

And extending that,
1) we don't have any reason to think that the cause is intelligent (KingMerv's point)
2) if it's intelligent, we don't have any reason to think that it's aware of our existence
3) if it's intelligent and aware of our existence, we don't have any reason to think that it cares
4) if blah blah blah above, we don't have any reason to think that it's benevolent
5) we don't have any reason to think that it could intervene in our existence, even if it chose to
6) we have no reason to think that it or its interests are accurately described by any religious text. Or by anything else.


Our universe may be the smelly gunk that's accumulating in the trap under The Living God Korp's kitchen sink. If so, TLG Korp probably isn't aware of us, and if he is, we're in the category of "something that needs to be cleaned out, one of these days."

In our world, I don't know how the gunk in the trap under my kitchen sink feels about me, but I don't think I'm worthy of its worship. I lack both the desire and the ability to intervene in the gunk's internal affairs. And, no matter how fervently the gunk might worship me, if the sink backs up, I'm pouring down some Drano.

ETA: Now I'm stuck with the vision of some amoeba, having bested some other amoeba in some amoebic contest, pausing to tell the other amoebae that all credit for its victory goes to the great dasmiller . . .
(and if if some biologist happens to know that amoebae are never found in plumbing traps, just let me have this vision, okay?)

[JoelKatz]

The notion of 'effect' being used is incoherent. Events or objects do not have single, unitary causes. They are generally the result of a number of distinct factors.

It's easy to say something like: He threw the cigarette in the garbage, which caused the fire, which caused the house to burn down, which caused the insurance agent to come, ...

But in fact, all of these things have multiple preceding causes. Without oxygen, there's no fire. Without insurance, there's no reason for the insurance agent to come. And without the laws of the universe being the way they are, oxygen wouldn't sustain combustion.

So the view of something as being an 'effect' that has a 'cause' is simply not what we observe. What we in fact observe is that future states are constrained by past states. That is, because I don't have a million dollars on my desk now, and there's no million dollars near my desk, I'm constrained to not have a million dollars in a few seconds. The past constrains the future.

What we see as cause and effect is really constraint.

This is what we see in QM as well. When we fire an electron towards two slits, we don't cause it to go through a particular slit. But we do constrain what comes out to be an electron, not a tomato.

I still think the best answer to the "how can the universe be caused, or in the alternative, how can it be uncaused" is "we have no idea". In any event, a creator is not an explanation. An explanation must be in terms of things we already understand. "A being you cannot detect in any way and whose nature is unknown to you did it somehow, using means beyond human comprehension, for reasons you will never understand and have no right to question" isn't an explanation. It just adds more confusion. (How did god create the universe? Why the way he did and not some other way?)

But if you insist on a possible answer, I have one. I can't, of course, say it's the correct answer. But so far as I know, it contains no contradictions. So it refutes the idea that there must be a creator. It's this simple -- the universe had a first state.

Now, you can't ask what created this first state, because that would imply a state prior to the first state. You can't ask what caused it or where it came from because, being the first state, it neither had nor needed any cause and therefore is not an effect.

And before you say this first state is god, remember that as soon as the second state comes along, the first state is gone. The first state is not magical or special in any way, other than that it had no prior state.

So far as I know, there are no logical contradictions in this position. Of course, the truth is probably stranger than we can currently imagine.

[Sledge]

Talking about the origin of the universe: I don't know how to argue the following point:

I am agnostic as to the origin of the universe. A theist I know argues that logically the universe must be created (not eternal), by an uncaused cause, a creator.... citing 'cause and effect' as the reason that this must logiocally be so..... the universe could not have caused itself out of nothing because that is illogical

I love the knots some religious people tie themselves in trying to prove their faith. So everything must have a cause because they say so, apart from one thing that doesn't need a cause because they say so. They then have the balls to call this bizarre pile of assertion and bullcrap "logic," and wonder why people are turning away from religion.

[Simon39759]

Re. Quantum mechanics... that seems illogical to a QM layman such as myslef: that something physical occurs without there having been any causative impetus from anything else at all.

Surely that is just 'random' rather than acausal?, ie we just arent able to observe it well enough or understand it well enough to explain it., but surely there is an unbroken physical chain of a process that is taking place?.... otherwise, this is magic isn't it?

Our human logic and quantum mechanic are a bit like oil and water. Our brains simply have not evolved in a quantum universe...
Remember, quantum mechanic is also about particles affecting each others at a distance and being shot toward two slots and passing through both at the same time...
Logic...


It must also been said that the universe is not actually 'something from nothing', the universe is 'nothing from nothing', because, according to most physicians I talked to, the sum of all the various energies in the universe is actually zero.

Finally, there is a wonderful lecture by Lawrence Krauss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) that you might want to watch, if only because, well it's great.


(Basically, a lot of very intelligent and very knowledgeable atheists/agnostics do not believe -in fact, they are both correlated to higher education levels- isn't it a bit condescending to assume that they'd wouldn't have found such a blatant obvious contradiction by themselves?)

[Vorticity]

Re. Quantum mechanics... that seems illogical to a QM layman such as myslef: that something physical occurs without there having been any causative impetus from anything else at all.


Why is it illogical? Causality is not an axiom of predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic). It used to be an implicit axiom of physics... but no longer.

Surely that is just 'random' rather than acausal?,

It is both.

The precise time at which a radioactive nucleus decays is a random variable with an exponential distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution). Some radioactive nuclei have very long half-lives. For example, Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That means that a given U238 nucleus could sit there, motionless and unchanging, for many billions of years. Then, one day, it decays. Nothing changed in it's environment, so what caused it to suddenly decay after all of that time? Nothing. It was an acausal event.

This is really how QM works.

ie we just arent able to observe it well enough or understand it well enough to explain it., but surely there is an unbroken physical chain of a process that is taking place?.


Nope.

What you are describing is known as hidden variable theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory): The idea that QM is not really random, but that there simply exist deterministic, causal processes going on, which we cannot observe for one reason or another, that truly determine the outcome of QM events. Unfortunately, it can be shown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem) that hidden variable theory would be a cure worse than the disease, e.g. requiring us to abandon locality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality).

The current consensus is that, strange as it may seem, QM, and by extension all events within the universe, are fundamentally acausal.

... otherwise, this is magic isn't it?

Why? Why must processes be causal?

[KingMerv00]

re special pleading..... not quite sure of the wording in your post KingMerv, but I have explained the basis upon which he is making his special pleading... he is basing his case on 'cause&effect' only NECESSARILY applies to physical bodies; non-physical could be different in nature and therefore could be uncaused. I suppose his argument comes down to "well SOMETHING along the line exists uncaused, in order for there to be anything at all.... and it is illogical to think that candidate is physical, the only logial candidate is non-physical".

So why can't there be "non-physical" laws of nature?

[Christian Klippel]

I suppose his argument comes down to "well SOMETHING along the line exists uncaused, in order for there to be anything at all.... and it is illogical to think that candidate is physical, the only logial candidate is non-physical".

For one, reality absolutely does not care what we can understand, what we decide logic is, or what we think how things should be. It simply does not.

As others have already pointed out, by now we know that there are "strange things" even inside our universe: quantum mechanics. Also, i recommend that Lawrence Krauss lecture.

Finally, his argument has another big flaw. He wants to grant god a special place/property that is "outside the physical realm" somehow. He goes on to explain that all that physical stuff we observe must have a cause, which (to my understanding) must be a physical cause as well. Now, how does he explain that something "un-physical" like the god he proposes is able to manipulate/interfere with something that is physical?

(ETA: And if he wants to grant that deity these attributes, and insists that non-physical things can have influence on physical things, why does he not grant other "non-physical stuff" the same?)

I find it particularly funny that theists try so hard to squeeze their god/deity/whatever into the last remaining gaps. Even if that means to give that deity properties that also defy any logic, just to go on and claim that anything else would be non-logical.

Greetings,

Chris

[gnome]

If this hypothetical "cause" is exempt from needing to have a cause, because it is "outside" of reality or whatever... is it not also exempt from needing to exist, since only real things need to exist in order to cause something?

Proving god exists, if one could do so, is a mockery of the idea of faith. Why should everyone who came before your "proof" be condemned because they could not carry the burden of believing without proof, but now that you've made your clever observation, faith is no longer necessary, because it's been proven. It's easy to have faith in something that's been proven.

[Dancing David]

Re. Quantum mechanics... that seems illogical to a QM layman such as myslef: that something physical occurs without there having been any causative impetus from anything else at all.



Could be hidden variables, but seems acausal.

[rocketdodger]

Time does not necessarily apply outside the universe. Therefore, cause and effect does not necessarily apply outside the universe. Therefore, the universe does not necessarily have to have a cause.

Maybe not the temporal part of cause/effect, but what about the atemporal part?

If we view the universe as a state machine, and events as transitions between states (or states themselves, whatever) then it is clear that the statement "A causes B" means there is a path between A and B.

Then even if you get rid of time, and just look at the math, there is something special about the shortest path between A and B. With time involved we say A caused B, if time ran backwards we would say B caused A, but without time we can still say A and B are linked somehow.

Seems to me the only way to solve the problems this brings up is to have every edge in the graph be bidirectional, which would mean the "cause" of the big bang would be either time running in reverse from a post-big-bang state or an edge going into the big-bang-state from somewhere else, maybe the "end" state of the universe.

[maddog]

Why is it okay to assume it in the acausal case but not the causal?

Because one "singularity" can blow up rationality, but one definable point does nothing to the others.

For example, consider the function 1/x. For any value of x other than zero, you can find the value of the function. No matter how close to zero you want to get, you can find a value for the function.

x = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 01 ?
No problem.

x = any value you can possibly imagine, no problem - EXCEPT for x = exactly zero.

All of the x-values other than zero correspond to the causality argument. Most of what we know obeys causality. But the x = 0 corresponding to what is not causal blows up the regular rule.

You can take 1/x for an interval that doesn't include x = 0, and that's like saying "causality applies, except for where it doesn't" - but that still allows that it doesn't apply everywhere.

Same concept for god. People can say and assume and believe that there is no god, but if there is proof of *just one* god, it blows up all of atheism.

[Tatyana]

'A Universe from Nothing'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[AvalonXQ]

I've really only been able to wrap my hands around the first cause argument in terms of thermodynamics.
Known physical events in our universe are energy-conserving and entropy-increasing.
Therefore, the length of time our universe could exist with only known physical events is finite. We have to hypothesize a change in the basic rules or a causal agent of some kind that the rules don't apply to.

[marplots]

...much snipped...

Surely that is just 'random' rather than acausal?

Here you are mixing up a rule for how something acts with a reason something acts as it does.

Say you roll a die. It randomly shows a number, one through six. The rule is that this die will generate random numbers in this range. But you can look beneath the rule to see how dice are constructed and rolled and come up with a cause underlying the random outcome. In QM, we also have a rule (many rules actually) that we have discovered. But there is no explanation behind them like there is with dice. (This might have changed a bit with string theory, I am not an expert. But I think the point stands.)

So, on some small scale, the world looks and behaves differently than we suppose it ought to. Who should judge such things; my sense of how things should be or how I find things to actually be?

It reminds me of the aphorism, "Don't go looking for answers... you might find them."

[Christian Klippel]

I've really only been able to wrap my hands around the first cause argument in terms of thermodynamics.
Known physical events in our universe are energy-conserving and entropy-increasing.
Therefore, the length of time our universe could exist with only known physical events is finite. We have to hypothesize a change in the basic rules or a causal agent of some kind that the rules don't apply to.

The problem is that what we observe in our universe is just that: what we observe in our universe. We simply do not know what is "outside" this universe. Unless we "go there and look", we will probably never know for sure.

Also, what we know of the "basic rules" is what we know _now_. It may (and will) change in the future. From our current point of knowledge there are simply areas that we do not know for certain, or that we can not observe with 100% certainty.

However, the only sane "solution" to this problem is to look harder, and to simply acknowledge that we simply don't know everything. Invoking some "goddidit" rule is just stupid. Especially so since science advanced more and more, and that imaginary god figment lost its explanatory power at the same rate. There really is only a "god of the gaps" left, with less and less gaps left for it.

Greetings,

Chris

[KingMerv00]

We have to hypothesize a change in the basic rules or a causal agent of some kind that the rules don't apply to.

Again, the "agent" need not be intelligent.

[Beerina]

There could be something deterministic behind all this QM causality -- however, that would be at a deeper level of reality, something Einstein didn't want to abandon. He had a bad enough time abandoning the concept of "reality", i.e. real things, particles in this case, that actually existed and had actual, measurable positions and momentums and so on.

QM voids that in a sense, and the idea that QM is built atop something deterministic shoves QM into the realm of non-reality as well. We'd now be two levels deep.

[PixyMisa]

This is what we see in QM as well. When we fire an electron towards two slits, we don't cause it to go through a particular slit. But we do constrain what comes out to be an electron, not a tomato.
There goes my marketing campaign for the Double-Slit Tomato Slicer. :(

[LarianLeQuella]

nothing will always remain nothing.

Tell your friend that something is always inherently more stable than nothing. :)

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing

[Pure Argent]

We have to hypothesize a change in the basic rules

Or that said rules simply don't apply.

Think about it. We only know that these laws apply within space-time. But if something is part of space-time, it's part of the universe. If we remove the universe, we take away space-time, and thus take away the only framework in which we know that these laws work. There's no reason to think that they apply in any other framework - or in a lack of a framework.

[Christian Klippel]

Or that said rules simply don't apply.

Think about it. We only know that these laws apply within space-time. But if something is part of space-time, it's part of the universe. If we remove the universe, we take away space-time, and thus take away the only framework in which we know that these laws work. There's no reason to think that they apply in any other framework - or in a lack of a framework.

In addition it might be useful to point out that what you said refers to _our_ space-time and _our_ universe. There may be many more universes out there, but that does not mean that they all follow the same laws/rules either.

Greetings,

Chris