Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


Before I was aware of this argument I had a bit of thought on causes and origins and arrived at the same conclusion of the character and basic nature of the Source of all things.

It is not entirely clear that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. If something begins to exist out of sheer nothingness, can you even point to its starting point?

The universe is said to have gotten to its present state due to the big bang, which I guess is the beginning you are referring to. What if in its previous state it had existed forever?

It is not entirely clear that eternity is devoid of a cause either, and it is proper to ask "what is the cause of this eternal state of affairs?"

The universe may have a cause but it is not logically necessary for the cause to be itself uncaused. E.g. man is the cause of computers but man is not uncaused.

Similarly, it is not logically necessary for the cause to be immaterial, timeless and space less. The cause is free to have its own time, space and material.

It also does not follow that the cause is personal. How did you arrive at this?

undercat:
It is not entirely clear that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. If something begins to exist out of sheer nothingness, can you even point to its starting point?

Sheer nothingness is logically and physically incoherent and not feasible.

undercat: The universe is said to have gotten to its present state due to the big bang, which I guess is the beginning you are referring to. What if in its previous state it had existed forever?

The Universe is not just said to have reached its present state but is said to have gotten its origin in a 'big bang'

undercat: It is not entirely clear that eternity is devoid of a cause either, and it is proper to ask "what is the cause of this eternal state of affairs?"

No actually. Eternity is essentially infinity. And it is essentially causeless. Unless you have an idea of an infinity of origin that you might want to share. I'm willing to listen

undercat: The universe may have a cause but it is not logically necessary for the cause to be itself uncaused. E.g. man is the cause of computers but man is not uncaused.

Similarly, it is not logically necessary for the cause to be immaterial, timeless and space less. The cause is free to have its own time, space and material.

It also does not follow that the cause is personal. How did you arrive at this?

Our universe (including space-time) is said to have had an abrupt beginning. I make the conclusion that anything sans space an time is eternity, infinity. And infinity is in all directions and uncaused. And there's a problem of infinite regress if one sticks to your train of thought.

Space and time are said to have originated with the big bang so the cause is necessarily immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

It follows that the cause is personal, because only conscious choice and action and even "thought" can account for the burst of energy and matter and space time and our universe in the absence of former conditions.

Joshthefirst:
Sheer nothingness is logically and physically incoherent and not feasible.

I beg to differ. I think the non existence of anything at all is a possible state of things, if you can call such blankness a state. Try to imagine a condition where anything you can think of is not.

The Universe is not just said to have reached its present state but is said to have gotten its origin in a 'big bang'

If the universe means the whole of existence, then it includes whatever it was that banged. The bang refers the inflation of the universe, before the bang the universe was infinitely dense. It could have existed in that infinitely dense state forever, before banging.

No actually. Eternity is essentially infinity. And it is essentially causeless. Unless you have an idea of an infinity of origin that you might want to share. I'm willing to listen

I mean "cause" in the sense of the answer to the question "why does A exist and not B?". For example, why is there an eternal universe? or, why is there an eternal God? Why isn't there nothingness instead?

Our universe (including space-time) is said to have had an abrupt beginning. I make the conclusion that anything sans space an time is eternity, infinity. And infinity is in all directions and uncaused. And there's a problem of infinite regress if one sticks to your train of thought.

We can only speak for our space-time. If we must speak of something outside the universe, what entitles us to assume that it has not space-time of its own?

My train of thought is not infinite regress per se, but a finite series. It is entirely possible that this universe has a creator who was in turn created. The idea is that it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the ultimate creator directly created our universe.

Space and time are said to have originated with the big bang so the cause is necessarily immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

It follows that the cause is personal, because only conscious choice and action and even "thought" can account for the burst of energy and matter and space time and our universe in the absence of former conditions.

This does not follow at all. Like I'm suggesting, the cause could also be an impersonal, eternal singularity. Have you ruled it out, and if yes, why?

OP

the uncaused cause is energy.

Case closed

But what caused cause?

AlfaSeltzer:
But what caused cause?

super cause...And it demands you believe it....

Joshthefirst:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


Before I was aware of this argument I had a bit of thought on causes and origins and arrived at the SME conclusion of the character and basic nature of the Source of all things.

1. The bolded is largely obtained by empirical observation and limited as an inductive experience.

2. Your argument is subtly based on the Big B.ang cosmological theory which you have always rejected. The idea that time and space are elastic and finite, is owed to this rejected cosmology. I find it a bit lazy and repugnant that you borrow/cherrypick the sections of the cosmological theory you like and disown the remainder. You have to come up with your own original ideas of how space, matter and time behave and correlate.

3. I have gone through hypotheses made by eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawkings and Penrose. From my understanding of their works, they (especially Stephen) conceives of the concept of imaginary time which as a vertical element which our familiar time lacks. He posits that this time (imaginary time) preexists our familiar time and preexists the Big Ban.g event. You should look that up. Very interesting.

undercat:


I beg to differ. I think the non existence of anything at all is a possible state of things, if you can call such blankness a state. Try to imagine a condition where anything you can think of is not.

The non-existence of anything is not feasible because we already have something existing. And something cannot arise from nothing.

undercat: If the universe means the whole of existence, then it includes whatever it was that banged. The bang refers the inflation of the universe, before the bang the universe was infinitely dense. It could have existed in that infinitely dense state forever, before banging.

The bang refers to the explosion of everything about our universe, including space-time from some "ancient energy".

undercat: I mean "cause" in the sense of the answer to the question "why does A exist and not B?". For example, why is there an eternal universe? or, why is there an eternal God? Why isn't there nothingness instead?

I do not think the universe is eternal. Your question of why there is a universe solves the question of the PERSON of its cause. Only an act of volition will cause the birth of the universe from infinity. Only volition will cause something of our universe's nature to be. Again. Nothing cannot create something, therefore a state of " nothingness" is not feasible, meaning that an eternal personality has always existed. Super abounding and being infinity itself.

undercat: We can only speak for our space-time. If we must speak of something outside the universe, what entitles us to assume that it has not space-time of its own?

This does not invalidate the argument but only makes the argument repeat itself for a different space time.

undercat: My train of thought is not infinite regress per se, but a finite series. It is entirely possible that this universe has a creator who was in turn created. The idea is that it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the ultimate creator directly created our universe.

How is it possible that this universe had a creator who was created? You might say it is possible this universe might have sprung from a previous one, but you can't say it has a creator who might have been created, because you'll have to adequately challenge the attributes of the cause of this universe, adequately arguing that the cause itself would be less than infinite with regards to time and space so that it will be able to have an origin itself, as infinity has no origin.

undercat: This does not follow at all. Like I'm suggesting, the cause could also be an impersonal, eternal singularity. Have you ruled it out, and if yes, why?

As you have implied, the reason I have ruled it out is because only a volitional act can explain why something like our universe came into being. Why did eternity continue in its own singularity?

Kay17:


1. The bolded is largely obtained by empirical observation and limited as an inductive experience.

So? Science is totally based on empirical observation.

Kay17: 2. Your argument is subtly based on the Big B.ang cosmological theory which you have always rejected. The idea that time and space are elastic and finite, is owed to this rejected cosmology. I find it a bit lazy and repugnant that you borrow/cherrypick the sections of the cosmological theory you like and disown the remainder. You have to come up with your own original ideas of how space, matter and time behave and correlate.

I cannot remember rejecting the big b.ang theory outrightly, but even if I had in the past, people change as they advance in knowledge. Get off my back. And if you can still show me where I'm cherry-picking I will make amends. And do you imply that the big bang theory is now rejected?

I could also say you should come up with your own ideas on how space and time correlate and stop borrowing ideas from Hawkings and others. Humanity is advanced when we build on our ideas ma'am. We must not isolate out thinking for fear of not being original. That would cause regress, not advancement.

Kay17: 3. I have gone through hypotheses made by eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawkings and Penrose. From my understanding of their works, they (especially Stephen) conceives of the concept of imaginary time which as a vertical element which our familiar time lacks. He posits that this time (imaginary time) preexists our familiar time and preexists the Big Ban.g event. You should look that up. Very interesting.

I will

Joshthefirst:
So? Science is totally based on empirical observation.

I cannot remember rejecting the big b.ang theory outrightly, but even if I had in the past, people change as they advance in knowledge. Get off my back. And if you can still show me where I'm cherry-picking I will make amends. And do you imply that the big bang theory is now rejected?

I could also say you should come up with your own ideas on how space and time correlate and stop borrowing ideas from Hawkings and others. Humanity is advanced when we build on our ideas ma'am. We must not isolate out thinking for fear of not being original. That would cause regress, not advancement.

I will

Since you do not reject Big Ban.g theory at all or outright, it then means you picked out what's true or favourable to you and dumped the rest, right? My contention is, since you are adopting the main ideas in the Big Ban.g, you should as well follow the conclusions. The Big Ban.g theory does not in anyway say there was a timeless past prior to the Big BAn.g event, whilst you are at the other end, saying there was with dubious logic.

Kay17:
Since you do not reject Big Ban.g theory at all or outright, it then means you picked out what's true or favourable to you and dumped the rest, right? My contention is, since you are adopting the main ideas in the Big Ban.g, you should as well follow the conclusions. The Big Ban.g theory does not in anyway say there was a timeless past prior to the Big BAn.g event, whilst you are at the other end, saying there was with dubious logic.

The big bang is not about the cause of the universe. It only describes how it came into being. It says nothing about what caused it. You are the one who is being dubious. The big bang theory does not give any opinion of the cause of the universe. It only gives the description of its coming into being.

I put up an argument based on the properties of the universe showing the logical nature of its cause and you come here hounding me because the big bang says nothing about its cause?

Only nothing is beginingless, timeless and changeless. Anything that exist at all must have at least time as one of/its only property.

Joshthefirst:
The big bang is not about the cause of the universe. It only describes how it came into being. It says nothing about what caused it. You are the one who is being dubious. The big bang theory does not give any opinion of the cause of the universe. It only gives the description of its coming into being.

I put up an argument based on the properties of the universe showing the logical nature of its cause and you come here hounding me because the big bang says nothing about its cause?

How then did you find a timeless cause leading to the beginning of the Universe?! You are the only individual in the world, able to conceive of a timeless point separated from another point in time.

ooman:
Only nothing is beginingless, timeless and changeless. Anything that exist at all must have at least time as one of/its only property.

how about infinity?

Kay17:


How then did you find a timeless cause leading to the beginning of the Universe?! You are the only individual in the world, able to conceive of a timeless point separated from another point in time.

Maybe you should go back once more and read the parameters of the argument. Remember I wasn't the one who put it forward. The beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and time. Therefore its cause is sans space and time.

Joshthefirst:
Maybe you should go back once more and read the parameters of the argument. Remember I wasn't the one who put it forward. The beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and time. Therefore its cause is sans space and time.

And I have mentioned that it is the beginning of horizontal time. Also, cosmologists have fitted a multiverse alongside with the Big Ban.g.

Kay17:


And I have mentioned that it is the beginning of horizontal time. Also, cosmologists have fitted a multiverse alongside with the Big Ban.g.

This doesn't change anything, as the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. The fact of the universe's expansion makes it to definitely have a previous space-time origin. Irrespective of its nature or shape.

Kay17:


And I have mentioned that it is the beginning of horizontal time...

Note that horizontal time is the only time that we experience and know of. Some parameters of vertical time can be said to "not be time" at all...infinity ie. Events occuring in infinity...

Joshthefirst:
Note that horizontal time is the only time that we experience and know of. Some parameters of vertical time can be said to "not be time" at all...infinity ie. Events occuring in infinity...

Joshthefirst:
This doesn't change anything, as the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. The fact of the universe's expansion makes it to definitely have a previous space-time origin. Irrespective of its nature or shape.

The dilemma of a cul de sac as experienced with horizontal time is negated with imaginary time. Imaginary time is often compared with a sphere, unlike a line with two ends; spheres do not have that limitation. So a multiverse does not need an absolute beginning.

A timeless world in my mind, is a still one. It is a world without motions. Including the motion of creation.

Kay17:




The dilemma of a cul de sac as experienced with horizontal time is negated with imaginary time. Imaginary time is often compared with a sphere, unlike a line with two ends; spheres do not have that limitation. So a multiverse does not need an absolute beginning.

A timeless world in my mind, is a still one. It is a world without motions. Including the motion of creation.

What about the fact of our universe's expansion? How does that merge with the cyclic imaginary time concept?

Remember imaginary time is an imaginary concept that has no bearing with reality. Essentially, it is an excuse of imagination.

Kay17:




The dilemma of a cul de sac as experienced with horizontal time is negated with imaginary time. Imaginary time is often compared with a sphere, unlike a line with two ends; spheres do not have that limitation. So a multiverse does not need an absolute beginning.

A timeless world in my mind, is a still one. It is a world without motions. Including the motion of creation.

A timeless world of infinity does account for everything we know and see, outside of imaginary concepts.

Joshthefirst:
how about infinity?

straight on point. Its nothing.

Joshthefirst:
A timeless world of infinity does account for everything we know and see, outside of imaginary concepts.

A timeless world of infinity is a contradiction. Infinity in relation to time is endless flow of time, it suggests the eternal presence of time. Whilst timeless is the total absence of time. Please try a keen understanding of both.

Joshthefirst:
What about the fact of our universe's expansion? How does that merge with the cyclic imaginary time concept?
Remember imaginary time is an imaginary concept that has no bearing with reality. Essentially, it is an excuse of imagination.

See . . When it does not conform to your preordained proofs for God's existence, you discard it. You cherrypick.

Kay17:


A timeless world of infinity is a contradiction. Infinity in relation to time is endless flow of time, it suggests the eternal presence of time. Whilst timeless is the total absence of time. Please try a keen understanding of both.



See . . When it does not conform to your preordained proofs for God's existence, you discard it. You cherrypick.

Sorry. But this is gibberish. What do you mean infinity in relation to time. I'm talking of sans time. This seems like sophistry to me. You say timeless infinity is a contradiction and support that by saying there is an infinite flowmof time in infinity?

Joshthefirst:
Sorry. But this is gibberish. What do you mean infinity in relation to time. I'm talking of sans time. This seems like sophistry to me. You say timeless infinity is a contradiction and support that by saying there is an infinite flowmof time in infinity?

Infinity can be in relation of numbers or any quantity. By in this circumstance, it is being used in relation to time. Hope you get me?

ooman:


straight on point. Its nothing.

care to explain?

Joshthefirst:
The non-existence of anything is not feasible because we already have something existing. And something cannot arise from nothing.

Yes, something currently exists. However, everything could also not have existed. That's what I mean when I say nothingness is a possibility.

The bang refers to the explosion of everything about our universe, including space-time from some "ancient energy".

The "ancient energy" you call God. I'm merely trying to show you that it could just as well not be "God".

I do not think the universe is eternal. Your question of why there is a universe solves the question of the PERSON of its cause. Only an act of volition will cause the birth of the universe from infinity. Only volition will cause something of our universe's nature to be. Again. Nothing cannot create something, therefore a state of " nothingness" is not feasible, meaning that an eternal personality has always existed. Super abounding and being infinity itself.

I thing you are just repeating yourself here, that eternity=personality.

This does not invalidate the argument but only makes the argument repeat itself for a different space time.

I'm trying to say that spacetime can be eternal. That would invalidate the argument.

How is it possible that this universe had a creator who was created? You might say it is possible this universe might have sprung from a previous one, but you can't say it has a creator who might have been created, because you'll have to adequately challenge the attributes of the cause of this universe, adequately arguing that the cause itself would be less than infinite with regards to time and space so that it will be able to have an origin itself, as infinity has no origin.

I couldn't understand you here. Could you explain a bit?

As you have implied, the reason I have ruled it out is because only a volitional act can explain why something like our universe came into being. Why did eternity continue in its own singularity?

Perhaps the singularity is inherently unstable. Perhaps this universe is one of the possible states of the singularity. These are options.

Joshthefirst:
care to explain?

Infinity qualifies something, not itself.

A thing may be said to exist for infinity, but infinity cannot be said to exist for infinity.

Infinity is abstract, nonexistent when nothing exists.

So infinity by itself is nothing.

Else you'd be holding the block view of time, which is pathetic.

[size=16]"First cause
Argument" Something can't come out nothing, therefore everything that exists
must need a creator" lol...

Using a god that always existed doesnt solve this problem, it only postpones it.
Because you have to assume your god didn't need a creator (pops out of
nothing) and created everything out of nothing.. Failing in your own argument..

If you can assume your god don't need a creator then i can say such for the
universe.
But if something can't come and out of nothing then Your god cant exist on it's own

it must have been created by another god, who then must have been
created by another and the chain goes on resulting to a chain of infinite regress.
Bringing such a thing as "a god did it" is a huge stab in the intellectual curiosity

of man and drastically reduces your willingness and ability to acquire the
knowledge of how it happened.[/size]

Joshthefirst:

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

This is the very definition of begging the question. Basically you've said,
- X
- If X, then Y
- Y
You're claiming your conclusion in your premise. For your argument to make sense, you'd have to include the intermediate premise that your argument implies so that it reads:

- The universe has a cause.
- Everything that has a cause must have an uncaused, personal Creator, who sans the thing in question is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
- Therefore: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Wrong post