| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - IS INFINITY REAL? -> INFINITE BIG BANGS | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: INFINITE BIG BANGS |
| Posted By: PeskyAtheist Posted On: Aug 12, 2002 Views: 2650 | INFINITE BIG BANGS "FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god? Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally? It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension. This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause. Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time. The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence. Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go. -- Nathaniel Branden |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Aug 18, 2002 Views: 2645 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS Hi Nathaniel, In summary, you are saying that the universe has always existed and therefore does not require a causal explanation. I have to say I agree with you, it's the very point I make in "Where did the universe come from?" However, the question "what lies outside the universe" depends on what we mean by universe. My question refers to 'our' big bang universe and what it is that we are expanding into, and queries the existence of other 'universes' existing in the same medium. The literal definition of universe "all there is" by definition means there can be nothing else outside of the universe. Keith |
| Posted By: PeskyAtheist Posted On: Aug 27, 2002 Views: 2634 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS Greetings Keith, I need to correct a error (on my part) that has caused you (and probably others) to think I am Nathaniel Branden; I am NOT. I was quoting Branden while trying to give credit to him for his insights. I meant to and should have clarified this fact when I posted his writing. No excuse, but I was very tired at the time and simply forgot... I apologize. *My* name is Dean Hovey -- a.k.a. PeskyAtheist, PeskyAtheist007 and PA -- and I am the originator and primary host of the A T H E I S M 1 0 1 Chatroom on the WinMX Peer Network (www.winmx.com). That said I must add that I find your threads on the topic of "infinity" highly thought-provoking and will be sharing them along with your URL's via text files in A101 in an effort to bring more astute intellectuals to it. You and your people are most certainly invited to bring your ideas to A101 as well. I haven't time right now to offer my personal views on INFINITY, but I promise to come back later to do just that. Cheers to all & DO keep up your excellent dialog -- er, while sober, heh ;-), PA |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Aug 27, 2002 Views: 2628 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS Hi PeskyAtheist, I don't know about staying sober, I get my best ideas while under the influence. I have visited your site and have to say that sadly I will not be able to make use of it as it is a Windows application. I have an iMac and happen to detest the Windows system, its not a patch on Apple. However, as the majority are Windows (why?) I am sure others will use it. Keith |
| Posted By: Anneline Posted On: Nov 1, 2002 Views: 2604 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS There is surely no such thing as "infinity" - everything must have a beginning and an end ! Nothing can be infinite, including the universe ! |
| Posted By: PeskyAtheist Posted On: Nov 3, 2002 Views: 2598 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS I wouldn't be so SURE of my line of 'reasoning' if I were you. Nothing can be "infinite?" Not even a 'god?' If you are one of those who think a 'god' can be infinite, then I think reasonably you must also consider the same possibility for all else in existence -- including the universe -- or you will be forced to admit that the god you might now believe in also had a beginning & a beginning & a beginning & a beginning & a... |
| Posted By: Joseph Fischer Posted On: Sep 20, 2005 Views: 2156 | God and Big Bang As you say, if the Universe always existed, that certainly simplifies things. If the rate of expansion of the Universe was slowing, then the repeating series of bang expand collapse bang expand collapse... would be a possibility. But what does the evidence show? As I understand it, the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate, not a decreasing rate. From my reading of recent astronomy discoveries, there is not enough matter in the Universe for gravity to cause it to collapse. Unless further astronomical discoveries change current thinking, there was only one big bang and the Universe will continue to expand. Instead of constantly cycling through expansion and collapse, perhaps the Universe had a beginning. Then time and space, matter and energy had a beginning. Therefore, perhaps there is a God outside the Universe, who started everything. If God, rather than being part of the Universe, or being the Universe, is separate, and different from the Universe, then God could always have existed and could be the cause of the Universe. God could even be Hawkings' observer who causes the quantum probability to collapse into reality. Who created God? If you are willing to accept that the Universe could have always existed, then are you willing to accept that God could have always existed? The evidence seems to show that the Universe may have had a beginning. But perhaps God always existed and did not need to be created or caused. |
| Posted By: sanduleak69202 Posted On: Oct 27, 2005 Views: 2134 | RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS There is no contradiction in demanding and searching for something that is the cause of everything. Why can't something exist that is the cause of everything? There is no logical contradiction in inducing a logical conclusion...that there has to be an initial cause. To deny this fundamental question and rationalise it using recursive, self explanatory and tautological reasoning such as: "If the cause exists, that is a part of existence. if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause". Reframed logically - the above sentence reads thus: "If the cause exists, the cause is a part of existence. if the cause does not exist, it cannot be a cause". however, I tend to agree with the statement: =================== Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause. =================== But if the base is existence, that existence had to be without any dependence on anything else. What would be wrong if we call that base of existence as the GOD. Because from that all powerful all encompassing base of existence has emerged everything. Anything outside of it is nonexistence. About the irreducible primary: - It had no beginning. For if it had a beginning something else created it. - It exists as a complete entity without the need for any medium. - The primary that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example. So the primary had free willto produce something else. |
| Posted By: Owen T Posted On: Aug 1, 2006 Views: 1991 | RE: RE: Why Do People Use Windows Because you can get to the bloody files you need on windows! Like all the system files and the way you can access files is much easier, alrite so it doesn't look as bloody pretty as a Mac but the fuctionality is soooo much better. If Windows Made iPod's you would be able to do things like rename and delete music from the iPod itself etc If you want me to expand on this then Im quite happy to. |
| Posted By: ilai Posted On: Feb 15, 2008 Views: 1684 | RE: RE: INFINITE BIG BANGS I'm sorry that i seem to have come to this discussion quite late, it seems to have started, (on this site) many years ago. i read the essay, "can anything 'real' be infinite?" and disagreed with the premise that infinity does not exist in the universe other than as an abstract mathematical idea. my thinking was basically just the one given at the top of the page, here, by peskyatheist, but not nearly so well defined: "there IS something therefor there has always been something", necessitating an infinity of something. I'm not saying that i Believe this to be true, just that it follows logically from the things we think we know about the world, (at this point). personally, i don't believe the argument to be an answerable one, simply because i think we are still in the 'dark ages' so to speak with this inquiry. (without all the facts the discussion would simply be an exorcise in positing hypothesise. like cave men trying to figure out how a computer works). still, that is how knowledge has advanced through the ages, and besides, it's fun. however, getting back on topic, the reason i'm writing this is that i am confused now by the reply given to the theory, at the top of THIS page, by Keith Meyes, who says, "I have to say I agree with you, it's the very point I make in "Where did the universe come from?" which i take to mean that Keith Meyes is the same person who wrote the ideas expressed in, "can anything 'real' be infinite?" where you said: "I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe", but these two statements are exactly contradictory, as far as i can tell... is there something i'm missing? sorry if this has already been answered somewhere else, and i just missed it. anyway both were interesting reads, though, i believe, out of my league. |