Transcendent cause to the Universe

[darthearth]

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

Any conjectured Universe is contingent, therefore must come from something that necessarily exists (A Universe does not necessarily exist). An infinite number of past events for any Universe makes no logical sense. (Yes, I've been reading the William Lane Craig debates)

How about it atheists? Explain the transcendent cause (that is necessarily existent) according to your speculated worldview. Theists of course know that this cause is God. Why? Because the concept of "God" is defined to be necessarily existent. Numbers themselves are the only other conceivable necessarily existent, but they cannot create a contingency, like "God" is defined as being able to do.


( oh, if you want to say the Universe came from nothing try again, non-being logically has no physical laws )

[Korashk]

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
Not a syllogism. your conclusion is entirely encapsulated in premise 2, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll assume you got it right.

Any conjectured Universe is contingent, therefore must come from something that necessarily exists (A Universe does not necessarily exist).
In some senses a universe does necessarily exist by definition.

An infinite number of past events for any Universe makes no logical sense.
Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not saying it makes sense, but I'd like to hear your LOGICAL justification.

How about it atheists? Explain the transcendent cause (that is necessarily existent) according to your speculated worldview.
Doesn't matter what it is.

Theists of course know that this cause is God.
http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/q/image/1349/58/1349586715725.jpg

Why? Because the concept of "God" is defined to be necessarily existent.
Not in the sense argued against by atheists.

(oh, if you want to say the Universe came from nothing try again, non-being logically has no physical laws )
Not based on our current knowledge of physics, but physical laws as we know them came about AFTER our universe's creation.

[Kahn]

You will die before you get this perfectly useless information.

[britishboy]

You will die before you get this perfectly useless information.

What I have always thought:D

[sqishy]

I believe in and stand by the idea that there is more than we see (because it's not logical to think that we see everything in existence with our senses/instruments). The big bang and time/space does have something 'behind' it, but since we are here in this universe, thinking of what isn't here in this universe is not going to be practical for what is here.
Yet, idk.

Like talking of what happens at and after death, if there is anything. Nobody alive knows for sure. We are here, not there. Think about what is here, and when death comes, think about it then.

[darthearth]

Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not saying it makes sense, but I'd like to hear your LOGICAL justification.



This is because a Universe is composed of sequential events. If a Universe is composed of sequential events, then any one event cannot have been preceded by an infinite number of events. This is because an infinite number of events would have had to have been crossed to arrive at the said event. By the definition of "infinite", this is impossible.

If a Universe cannot have an infinite number of past events in relation to any particular event, the Universe must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it cannot be necessarily existent.

Everything that exists has an objective explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. If the Universe is not necessarily existent, then there must have been an external cause that is necessarily existent (one can postulate realities before this Universe, but they just serve to move everything back a step, the central issue remains). The only concept that meets this definition (necessarily existent and producing a Universe) is God. According to the best scientific theory, there was a quantum vacuum that preceded this Universe. But the quantum vacuum is not necessarily existent, because it is a physical thing that experienced a change (quantum nucleation into our Universe), or "an event" from one state to another (which is a sequence of events, the quantum fluctuations themselves are also a sequence of events). And given the above discussion, any reality composed of sequential events cannot be necessarily existent.


Not based on our current knowledge of physics, but physical laws as we know them came about AFTER our universe's creation.

Non-being has no laws at all, it is non-existence.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I'm a believer in the big-crunch-causes-the-big-bang-again Theory, which theoretically means it's infinite, though that does leave the question of where that started.

[Korashk]

This is because a Universe is composed of sequential events. If a Universe is composed of sequential events, then any one event cannot have been preceded by an infinite number of events. This is because an infinite number of events would have had to have been crossed to arrive at the said event. By the definition of "infinite", this is impossible.

If a Universe cannot have an infinite number of past events in relation to any particular event, the Universe must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it cannot be necessarily existent.

Everything that exists has an objective explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. If the Universe is not necessarily existent, then there must have been an external cause that is necessarily existent (one can postulate realities before this Universe, but they just serve to move everything back a step, the central issue remains). The only concept that meets this definition (necessarily existent and producing a Universe) is God. According to the best scientific theory, there was a quantum vacuum that preceded this Universe. But the quantum vacuum is not necessarily existent, because it is a physical thing that experienced a change (quantum nucleation into our Universe), or "an event" from one state to another (which is a sequence of events). And given the above discussion, any reality composed of sequential events cannot be necessarily existent.
That's actually a very good logical explanation assuming every premise is true. The problem with the explanation is that few of its assumptions are currently proven.

For example, in your first sentence you state that "a Universe is composed of sequential events", this is a bare assertion. The only thing we can really claim right now is that OUR universe is composed of sequential events. In context the laws of our universe do not necessarily apply to other universes and therein lies the assumption.

Most reasonably claim that the beginning of the current universe with its current physical laws has a beginning which was the Big Bang, hoewever, that doesn't mean that "before" the Big Bang there was some other cause for our universe (I put before in quotes because the concept of time was created by the Big Bang).

The problem with the rest of your argument is that it relies on equivocation. In your initial post you argue for a concept of diety different than the one generally discredited by the atheist community, and in this post your argument relies on one definition of universe (meaning the one we currently live in), while ignoring the more general sense in which the universe is simply everything that exists.

Non-being has no laws at all, it is non-existence.
Just because our universe didn't exist doesn't mean that a different universe didn't.

[darthearth]

That's actually a very good logical explanation assuming every premise is true. The problem with the explanation is that few of its assumptions are currently proven.

For example, in your first sentence you state that "a Universe is composed of sequential events", this is a bare assertion. The only thing we can really claim right now is that OUR universe is composed of sequential events. In context the laws of our universe do not necessarily apply to other universes and therein lies the assumption.

Most reasonably claim that the beginning of the current universe with its current physical laws has a beginning which was the Big Bang, hoewever, that doesn't mean that "before" the Big Bang there was some other cause for our universe (I put before in quotes because the concept of time was created by the Big Bang).

The problem with the rest of your argument is that it relies on equivocation. In your initial post you argue for a concept of diety different than the one generally discredited by the atheist community, and in this post your argument relies on one definition of universe (meaning the one we currently live in), while ignoring the more general sense in which the universe is simply everything that exists.


Just because our universe didn't exist doesn't mean that a different universe didn't.

I think a sequence of events for any possible universe is a well justified assumption. Can you please explain how a universe cannot be composed of a sequence of events? Even the quantum vacuum is a sequence of quantum fluctuations. Time, energy, any physical law that can be imagined and everything else that can be fathomed all depend on sequential events. If it is not possible to define a universe without sequential events, why object to the statement? If you can define one, I'm all ears.

As I stated, the Big Bang resulted from an instability within the quantum vacuum (quantum nucleation into a lower energy state). It did have an entity that preceded it. Our particular Universal timeline started then, yes, but that doesn't mean there wasn't another relevant timeline before ours began, indeed there was, the root of the quantum vacuum is the uncertainty principle, the uncertainty principle explicitly depends on time and energy uncertainty, therefore the existence of time.

If the universe was everything that physically exists, it would still be composed of a sequence of events. Again, define for the forum an alternative if you disagree with this. Something without events is timeless and changeless, this concept does not mesh with the dynamic universe we are in, and we are necessarily a part of everything that physically exists.

When I speak of non-being I'm referring to the metaphysical axiom "from nothing, nothing comes", I'm not talking about just our particular universe not being around, I'm talking about absolute non-existence itself. Non-existence has no laws (therefore no laws are able to "evolve" nothing into something). I was merely stating the obvious so that time is not wasted with "the universe came from nothing" claim.

If you feel I'm speaking of a deity dissimilar from the deity that atheists refuse to believe in, then I suggest you may not be an atheist. What is this deity that is "generally discredited" by the atheistic community? The particular god of the Bible or something? If it is limited to that god and other traditional gods only, I wouldn't call it atheism. I thought atheism was a refusal to belief in ANY god, even the one I have defined. I would be happy to learn that is not so. (The God I have defined is non-physical, if it were physical it would be subject to the same reasoning that prevented any physical universe from being necessarily existent.)

[Bleid]

Not a syllogism. your conclusion is entirely encapsulated in premise 2, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll assume you got it right.

That is a syllogism. It perfectly takes the form:

1. A
2. If A then B
_______
3. B

There's no avoiding that. You're just simply wrong.

In fact, an argument of that form is known as a hypothetical syllogism, precisely.

And don't confuse a hypothetical syllogism with the inference rule in logic for the Hypothetical Syllogism. That is,

1. If A then B.
2. If B then C.
________
3. If A then C.

[Sir Suomi]

... Well, I'm not going to even attempt a whack at this one. I've already fried my brains studying for finals, now I'm going to fry my brain trying to comprehend whatever the hell you two are saying. But hell, I'll give it a try

However, from what I (think) am understanding is that your argument is that you're saying that the only reason our Universe exists is due to certain prior events, and without these prior events, our current Universe would not exist. You also say that it would be impossible for our Universe to be nothing before the Big Bang. Somehow, you are linking these facts and saying they are due to a deity's will? If I'm comprehending this argument right, which correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to disagree with you.

There are many different holes throughout your argument. Firstly, according to a well respected theory, there was indeed before the Big Bang. As the theory goes, and forgive me because it has been quite some time since I researched into this, there was another, identical universe before ours, but it basically stopped it's growth (Such growth in our Universe can be seen, and is known as Redshfit. I'm not in the mood to explain it, so if you're curious do your own research) due to the fact that the Universe basically "ran out" of matter to expand with, and reached an equilibrium. Once this happened, the Universe begin to retract, and compressed itself into a very small area, much like the inner core of a star does after it runs out of helium and such. And, like a star, the "Universe bits" immediately expanded, rapidly reaching out, and is still expanding today, or at least, as far as we can tell. This expanding Universe is our current Universe, and like our previous Universe, our's will eventually collapse again, restarting the cycle.

Also, on your theory that all events are due to past events, it reminds me awfully of the Chaos Theory, I have found another hole in that argument. Ever hear about Schrodinger's cat? If you have paid any attention to physics and such, you must have. Basically, if you put a cat in a box, that has a container of a lethal poison that the cat may/may not consume, you will have one of two options that will happen when you take the cat out of the box. You will either have a cat who did not consume the poison, or you will have a dead cat on your hands. But until you physically take the cat out, there is 2 possible outcomes that equally could happen, or in other words, 2 separate universes where one has the healthy cat, and one will have the deceased cat. Basically, this elaborates somehow on showing that multiple universes are possible, and until an outside observer observes the situation, all universes, are in theory, real. Honestly, I haven't done much research into alternate universes and such, it gives me too much of a headache. But I'm hoping you see my point.

Well, I'm hoping this adds a decent rebuttal to your argument. Please, if I'm misunderstanding what you are attempting to argue against, or if I have any flaws in my argument, please inform me. However, be aware that I have used pure theories here, which in turn you have too. So mind how you disagree.

[darthearth]

... Well, I'm not going to even attempt a whack at this one. I've already fried my brains studying for finals, now I'm going to fry my brain trying to comprehend whatever the hell you two are saying. But hell, I'll give it a try

However, from what I (think) am understanding is that your argument is that you're saying that the only reason our Universe exists is due to certain prior events, and without these prior events, our current Universe would not exist. You also say that it would be impossible for our Universe to be nothing before the Big Bang. Somehow, you are linking these facts and saying they are due to a deity's will? If I'm comprehending this argument right, which correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to disagree with you.

There are many different holes throughout your argument. Firstly, according to a well respected theory, there was indeed before the Big Bang. As the theory goes, and forgive me because it has been quite some time since I researched into this, there was another, identical universe before ours, but it basically stopped it's growth (Such growth in our Universe can be seen, and is known as Redshfit. I'm not in the mood to explain it, so if you're curious do your own research) due to the fact that the Universe basically "ran out" of matter to expand with, and reached an equilibrium. Once this happened, the Universe begin to retract, and compressed itself into a very small area, much like the inner core of a star does after it runs out of helium and such. And, like a star, the "Universe bits" immediately expanded, rapidly reaching out, and is still expanding today, or at least, as far as we can tell. This expanding Universe is our current Universe, and like our previous Universe, our's will eventually collapse again, restarting the cycle.

Also, on your theory that all events are due to past events, it reminds me awfully of the Chaos Theory, I have found another hole in that argument. Ever hear about Schrodinger's cat? If you have paid any attention to physics and such, you must have. Basically, if you put a cat in a box, that has a container of a lethal poison that the cat may/may not consume, you will have one of two options that will happen when you take the cat out of the box. You will either have a cat who did not consume the poison, or you will have a dead cat on your hands. But until you physically take the cat out, there is 2 possible outcomes that equally could happen, or in other words, 2 separate universes where one has the healthy cat, and one will have the deceased cat. Basically, this elaborates somehow on showing that multiple universes are possible, and until an outside observer observes the situation, all universes, are in theory, real. Honestly, I haven't done much research into alternate universes and such, it gives me too much of a headache. But I'm hoping you see my point.

Well, I'm hoping this adds a decent rebuttal to your argument. Please, if I'm misunderstanding what you are attempting to argue against, or if I have any flaws in my argument, please inform me. However, be aware that I have used pure theories here, which in turn you have too. So mind how you disagree.

When I say "Universe", I'm necessarily including ALL past physical universes. It doesn't matter if these universes have half dead cats in them or not or are in continuous oscillation. How is having a Schrodinger's cat define a universe without events? Both live cat and dead cat realities are contingent upon putting a cat into the cage are they not? This is a sequence of events. An oscillating universe is a sequence of events. So I'm unclear what you are calling "holes" in my argument. Could you clarify these points?

I didn't explicitly say "deity's will", but it is implicit yes. Now, one may ask how can this deity not be subject to the infinite regress logic. The only response can be that this entity is inscrutable, which is also a characteristic of "God" so defined. It is interesting how physics leads one to postulate a non-physical inscrutable entity, we do this because physical systems are definitively governed by physical laws of cause and effect (by observation), there is no such constraint on God thus defined, which reasonably allows and even indicates the claim.

[Bleid]

When I say "Universe", I'm necessarily including ALL past physical universes. It doesn't matter if these universes have half dead cats in them or not or are in continuous oscillation. How is having a Schrodinger's cat define a universe without events? Both live cat and dead cat realities are contingent upon putting a cat into the cage are they not? This is a sequence of events. An oscillating universe is a sequence of events. So I'm unclear what you are calling "holes" in my argument. Could you clarify these points?

I didn't explicitly say "deity's will", but it is implicit yes. Now, one may ask how can this deity not be subject to the infinite regress logic. The only response can be that this entity is inscrutable, which is also a characteristic of "God" so defined. It is interesting how physics leads one to postulate a non-physical inscrutable entity, we do this because physical systems are definitively governed by physical laws of cause and effect (by observation), there is no such constraint on God thus defined, which reasonably allows and even indicates the claim.


There are no actual holes in the argument you presented for a transcendent cause.

However, there aren't any ways you can tie in transcendent cause to imply God, necessarily, either.

[darthearth]

There are no actual holes in the argument you presented for a transcendent cause.

However, there aren't any ways you can tie in transcendent cause to imply God, necessarily, either.

I'm defining the concept of "God" to satisfy the requirements of the transcendent cause. How is it then that there "aren't any ways you can tie in transcendent cause to imply God"? I don't follow your logic.

[Bleid]

I'm defining the concept of "God" to satisfy the requirements of the transcendent cause. How is it then that there "aren't any ways you can tie in transcendent cause to imply God"? I don't follow your logic.

Since, the transcendent cause isn't necessarily a God, regardless of the definitions you provide. It is simply a cause beyond the current realm of known existence.

[darthearth]

Since, the transcendent cause isn't necessarily a God, regardless of the definitions you provide. It is simply a cause beyond the current realm of known existence.

True, but the point I was making was that the only concept society presently has to account for the transcendent cause is "God" thus defined. This was my question, atheists don't believe in ANY God of whatever definition (or they say they don't), so what concept do they have that satisfies the requirements of a transcendent cause? That is what I was asking. I see one response may be "we just don't know, but we will still refuse to believe."

[Bleid]

True, but the point I was making was that the only concept society presently has to account for the transcendent cause is "God" thus defined. This was my question, atheists don't believe in ANY God of whatever definition (or they say they don't), so what concept do they have that satisfies the requirements of a transcendent cause? That is what I was asking. I see one response may be "we just don't know, but we will still refuse to believe."

Not necessarily. The requirements of a transcendent cause are not so easy to pin down.

The reason being is that, once you leave the realm of 'known existence' you also leave:

Science.
Logic.
Intuition.
Causal understandings of any sort.

Can't simply use our own biases of how we know our universe works and then think that this implies something about the attributes of something that isn't in our universe.

This is also why any definitions we provide are irrelevant if we're genuinely talking about a transcendent cause. The reason for this is, it transcends us.

If you've studied logic, you might have come across the Principle of Explosion. The same idea is present there. Once you're beyond reason and understanding - you're beyond it. There's no going back and pulling from it.

Similarly, no one could justifiably say "There isn't a God because (something in our universe)."

[darthearth]

Not necessarily. The requirements of a transcendent cause are not so easy to pin down.


Do you disagree with any of my requirements? If so, please explain why you disagree.


The reason being is that, once you leave the realm of 'known existence' you also leave:

Science.
Logic.
Intuition.
Causal understandings of any sort.


Yes, the theist God is understood to be beyond all of our comprehension.


Can't simply use our own biases of how we know our universe works and then think that this implies something about the attributes of something that isn't in our universe.


Please explain how I am inappropriately using my own biases of how I know the universe to imply attributes to the transcendent cause if my argument is logically valid.


This is also why any definitions we provide are irrelevant if we're genuinely talking about a transcendent cause. The reason for this is, it transcends us.

If you've studied logic, you might have come across the Principle of Explosion. The same idea is present there. Once you're beyond reason and understanding - you're beyond it. There's no going back and pulling from it.

Similarly, no one could justifiably say "There isn't a God because (something in our universe)."

Please explain how my definitions are irrelevant if these definitions satisfy the requirements of transcendent cause. Do you disagree with the requirements? Again, please explain why you may disagree with them.

[Bleid]

Do you disagree with any of my requirements? If so, please explain why you disagree.

I do, for the reasons I provided. Your stated 'requirements' are not necessarily accurate.

Yes, the theist God is understood to be beyond all of our comprehension.

Yes.

Please explain how I am inappropriately using my own biases of how I know the universe to imply attributes to the transcendent cause if my argument is logically valid.

Simply because the argument for a transcendent cause being there is valid does not mean that your conclusions about the requirements of this transcendent cause are also validly derived.

And the reason is - you can't conclude things about (that which is outside our observation) based on (that which is inside our observation).

Consider a similar situation, only in terms of locations rather than entities:

If I lived on the moon and had no knowledge of Earth, and an astronaut was to land next to me and ask, "Do you know of Earth?" and I was to say, "Oh, I do not have any experience of Earth, but I can at least conclude that it must be a barren wasteland just as the moon is, correct?"

I would be wrong, yes?

Because I am trying to conclude things that I have no justification to conclude, because my experience does not take me that far.

Please explain how my definitions are irrelevant if these definitions satisfy the requirements of transcendent cause. Do you disagree with the requirements? Again, please explain why you may disagree with them.

Your definitions are irrelevant for the same exact reason. They do not necessarily satisfy the requirements of a transcendent cause because we do not know what those requirements actually are. I explained above as to why that is the case.

Also, we should note that validity in logic is not the same as soundness. Although, I would agree that your argument for a transcendent cause is sound as well. Since it would be necessary.



In summary:

We have no reason to believe that any of our fundamental laws of reasoning hold true when examining something that transcends our reality, such as:

Law of identity: x is the same as itself.
Law of non-contradiction: it is not the case that ((x is the case) and (x is not the case)) at once in the same respect.
Law of excluded middle: x is either the case or it isn't the case.

Among many other laws and principles of reasoning that we take for granted.

We cannot conclude about any attributes of a transcendent cause, because we are not certain of its exact nature, by definition of transcendent.

We do not even know if any of our faculties of reasoning will still hold true when scrutinizing the characteristics of such a cause.

[darthearth]

I do, for the reasons I provided. Your stated 'requirements' are not necessarily accurate.



Yes.



Simply because the argument for a transcendent cause being there is valid does not mean that your conclusions about the requirements of this transcendent cause are also validly derived.

And the reason is - you can't conclude things about (that which is outside our observation) based on (that which is inside our observation).

Consider a similar situation, only in terms of locations rather than entities:

If I lived on the moon and had no knowledge of Earth, and an astronaut was to land next to me and ask, "Do you know of Earth?" and I was to say, "Oh, I do not have any experience of Earth, but I can at least conclude that it must be a barren wasteland just as the moon is, correct?"

I would be wrong, yes?

Because I am trying to conclude things that I have no justification to conclude, because my experience does not take me that far.



Your definitions are irrelevant for the same exact reason. They do not necessarily satisfy the requirements of a transcendent cause because we do not know what those requirements actually are. I explained above as to why that is the case.

Also, we should note that validity in logic is not the same as soundness. Although, I would agree that your argument for a transcendent cause is sound as well. Since it would be necessary.



In summary:

We have no reason to believe that any of our fundamental laws of reasoning hold true when examining something that transcends our reality, such as:

Law of identity: x is the same as itself.
Law of non-contradiction: it is not the case that ((x is the case) and (x is not the case)) at once in the same respect.
Law of excluded middle: x is either the case or it isn't the case.

Among many other laws and principles of reasoning that we take for granted.

We cannot conclude about any attributes of a transcendent cause, because we are not certain of its exact nature, by definition of transcendent.

We do not even know if any of our faculties of reasoning will still hold true when scrutinizing the characteristics of such a cause.


OK, so how do handle the notion that:

"Everything that exists has an objective explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause."

Do you believe this is a false dichotomy?

[Bleid]

OK, so how do handle the notion that:

"Everything that exists has an objective explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause."

Do you believe this is a false dichotomy?

Not only do I think that it is not a false dichotomy, but I think it's a necessary truth. There's no other possibility.

[darthearth]

Not only do I think that it is not a false dichotomy, but I think it's a necessary truth. There's no other possibility.

If it is not a false dichotomy, then the transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. If it has an external cause, then that cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause, and so on and so forth. Due to the impossibility of traversing an infinite set of external causes, at least one cause must be necessarily existent. Further, this cause that is necessarily existent must be able to produce contingency, given the definition of "cause". So we arrive at what I first posted, a necessarily existent that can produce contingency.

Do you believe these characteristics (requirements) of an original cause, 1) that it be necessarily existent and 2) able to produce contingency, are validly derived above?

Further, if this original cause produced a contingency, there is a sequence of events, that in which there was no contingency and that in which there was. If there is a sequence of events, how then can the cause itself not be subject to infinite regress logic (because a sequence necessitates the existence of time, and it is impossible to traverse an infinite time)? My response was that it must be inscrutable. Does not the state of being inscrutable satisfy your points regarding transcendent cause?

And these were my "requirements": 1) necessary existence 2) produce a contingency 3) inscrutable. I then stated "God" is the only current concept that society has that satisfies these requirements.

(also, the characteristic of non-physical is also strongly indicated since nothing that is currently physically known meets the 3 requirements. "It is interesting how physics leads one to postulate a non-physical inscrutable entity, we do this because physical systems are definitively governed by physical laws of cause and effect (by observation), there is no such constraint on God thus defined, which reasonably allows and even indicates the claim.")

[Zach1702]

time didn't exist before the big bang
if anything did happen before it couldn't have any affect on the present

[Zach1702]

'the big bang was the ultimate free lunch'-stephen hawking

[darthearth]

time didn't exist before the big bang
if anything did happen before it couldn't have any affect on the present

'the big bang was the ultimate free lunch'-stephen hawking



Our particular timeline didn't exist, but inherent in the uncertainty principle which describes that which might have been before the big bang (the quantum fluctuation field), is the concept of time (the product of uncertainty in energy and uncertainty in time), and yes, the big bang as far as we know was the ultimate free lunch due to the cancellation of positive and negative energy. I'm unconvinced that anything that happened before the big bang couldn't affect the present, there are too many cosmological questions for that.

[Bleid]

If it is not a false dichotomy, then the transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. If it has an external cause, then that cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause, and so on and so forth. Due to the impossibility of traversing an infinite set of external causes, at least one cause must be necessarily existent. Further, this cause that is necessarily existent must be able to produce contingency, given the definition of "cause". So we arrive at what I first posted, a necessarily existent that can produce contingency.

Do you believe these characteristics (requirements) of an original cause, 1) that it be necessarily existent and 2) able to produce contingency, are validly derived above?

I very much like the well-reasoned argument form. However, the issue is with the Domain of Discourse.

We could guarantee this reasoning is well-formed if we didn't leave the Domain of Discourse under which logic is known to be rigorous.

We are not certain in any capacity as to whether or not logic will still function soundly and completely outside of the reality we know and observe.

Soundness in a logical system is had if there exists no manner by which we can provide a proof of an invalid argument in the logical system.

Completeness in a logical system is had if there exists a manner by which we can provide a proof of every valid argument in the logical system.

We know, for example, that within the Domain of Discourse for known reality, Predicate Logic is both sound and complete.

However, once we begin to argue of states of affairs or entities or events that are outside of our Domain of Discourse, soundness and completeness are uncertain, and so, our logic is no longer rigorous and guaranteed to be rational and useful for us once we are not speaking of cases that are within the appropriate Domain of Discourse.

Further, if this original cause produced a contingency, there is a sequence of events, that in which there was no contingency and that in which there was. If there is a sequence of events, how then can the cause itself not be subject to infinite regress logic (because a sequence necessitates the existence of time, and it is impossible to traverse an infinite time)? My response was that it must be inscrutable. Does not the state of being inscrutable satisfy your points regarding transcendent cause?

And these were my "requirements": 1) necessary existence 2) produce a contingency 3) inscrutable. I then stated "God" is the only current concept that society has that satisfies these requirements.

And that inscrutability is a part of the issue regarding Domain of Discourse. It's inscrutable, and by definition, incomprehensible. This includes our reasoning.

Even when I say, "The transcendent, inscrutable cause" my reasoning for this statement is in question, because I am using logical axioms. This is violating the idea of inscrutable, as well.

The law of identity, that an entity is equivalent to itself and different from any other, is not necessarily known to be accurate once the object of our discussion is outside of our Domain of Discourse, which this transcendent cause is necessarily outside of, by definition of transcendent.

Seems confusing? It should be. It's inscrutable.

Every single constituent of our reasoning that we all use on a constant, daily basis is up in the air once we speak of that which is transcendent, and especially so when we speak of that which is inscrutable.

(also, the characteristic of non-physical is also strongly indicated since nothing that is currently physically known meets the 3 requirements. "It is interesting how physics leads one to postulate a non-physical inscrutable entity, we do this because physical systems are definitively governed by physical laws of cause and effect (by observation), there is no such constraint on God thus defined, which reasonably allows and even indicates the claim.")

Which is a problem - it's not physically known. To speak outside of the physically known, we lose our certainty of logic, which precisely ranges over the physically known.

[darthearth]

I very much like the well-reasoned argument form. However, the issue is with the Domain of Discourse.
...........


It seems then you would disagree with the statement: The transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. Even though you say that it is necessarily true that everything that exists must have an objective reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence, or in an external cause. This is because you place the "transcendent cause" outside of the Domain of Discourse.

Do I have this right?

[Bleid]

It seems then you would disagree with the statement: The transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause. Even though you say that it is necessarily true that everything that exists must have an objective reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence, or in an external cause. This is because you place the "transcendent cause" outside of the Domain of Discourse.

Do I have this right?

Yes. I'll clarify in greater detail.

It is a necessary truth that,

"Everything that exists must have an objective reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence, or in an external cause."

However, the Domain of Discourse for the statement all known reality, just like any statement if it is not clarified as to what it ranges over. "Known reality" is the extent of logic.

But if we try to speak of a transcendent cause in this same Domain of Discourse, the statement becomes false, because the original one only ranged over its own Domain, and a transcendent cause is by definition outside of our largest possible Domain.

So, "The transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause."

Is false in our Domain of Discourse, because it isn't actually in our known reality, by what transcendent means. So, the original statement that's necessarily true does not apply to it.

And if we were to try and specify the Domain of Discourse to be 'that which is outside of our known reality' we would have an issue of logical uncertainty.

Essentially:

Domain #1 (Inside of known reality):

"Everything that exists must have an objective reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence, or in an external cause." - True

"The transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause." - False (transcendent cause does not exist in this domain, hence, the statement is false)

Domain #2 (Outside of known reality):

"Everything that exists must have an objective reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own existence, or in an external cause." - Unknown/Undefined (Our logic is not known to apply here)

"The transcendent cause, since it exists, must have an objective explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature (necessarily existent) or in an external cause." - Unknown/Undefined (Our logic is not known to apply here)

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Assume that the universe was created by a deity. Where did this deity come from? If you're prepared to say that the deity was simply always there than you have to also be prepared to admit that a singularity was simply there.

Please watch this video with an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs

[Bleid]

Assume that the universe was created by a deity. Where did this deity come from? If you're prepared to say that the deity was simply always there than you have to also be prepared to admit that a singularity was simply there.

Please watch this video with an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs

This reasoning is invalid, for the same reason I outlined in the post just before your own. The idea that the deity must have come from somewhere is flawed due to Domain of Discourse differences.

*As a note in general, not in response to PerpetualImperfexion:

Someone could try to argue for (that which is outside of our known reality) having the exact same physical properties of our known reality, but merely being outside of what we can observe for whatever reason that might be.

It would be a difficult thing to argue for, since there is no genuine knowledge of reality that is outside of what we currently know, by definition, and so it would be entirely a gamble, regardless of the argument.

The most that could be done is to attempt abductive reasoning, since neither deduction nor induction could work. Still, issues could easily come up even then if it is not done properly (aside from the normal issue that it entails the fallacy of affirming the consequent). But, I don't doubt for a moment that someone could be clever.

Once you establish some sufficient explanation for why the realm (outside of our known reality) would be similar, then you could accurately use the deductive reasoning of this transcendent cause argument in justification for God.

[darthearth]

Once you establish some sufficient explanation for why the realm (outside of our known reality) would be similar, then you could accurately use the deductive reasoning of this transcendent cause argument in justification for God.

Delightful.

I'm a monotheistic panentheist. I believe that this entire physical reality is a part of God, or a part of the original cause. Do you think that this can be used as a justification for the reasoning? I'm not attempting to prove anything, just implying the Domain of Discourse through a postulate (that this universe is a part of its own cause, therefore since this universe is within the domain, the superset lies within the domain).

Assume that the universe was created by a deity. Where did this deity come from? If you're prepared to say that the deity was simply always there than you have to also be prepared to admit that a singularity was simply there.

Please watch this video with an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs

I liked the video and agreed with it up until the end when the narrator stated that a cycling universe would have always existed. I showed this to be illogical in my above posts given that one can not traverse an infinite sequence of events (all events before the present) by the definition of infinity. I have no objection to the idea of a singularity.

[Bleid]

Delightful.

I'm a monotheistic panentheist. I believe that this entire physical reality is a part of God, or a part of the original cause. Do you think that this can be used as a justification for the reasoning? I'm not attempting to prove anything, just implying the Domain of Discourse through a postulate (that this universe is a part of its own cause, therefore since this universe is within the domain, the superset lies within the domain).

Certainly could. It would be well-formed as well, and it would get us a genuinely convincing, valid argument for the existence of a God.

Let's start with yours.

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

4. ∵ Regardless of whether or not the transcendent cause has any presence in any realm of reality, incomprehensible to the observers of this reality or not, the universe is to be considered a wholistic reference to the transcendent cause, due to the transcendent cause being its cause.

5. ∵ If the universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent cause, then it is necessarily in the Domain of Discourse of the transcendent cause.

6. ∵ Hence, the universe is within the Domain of Discourse for the transcendent cause, but the transcendent cause is not necessarily within the Domain of Discourse for the universe.

7. ∵ "Regardless of whether or not the transcendent cause has any presence in any realm of reality, incomprehensible to the observers of this reality or not," the transcendent cause is itself a reference to the transcendent for the universe we inhabit (and the transcendent for any transcendence of itself).

8. ∵ In general, therefore, for the lineage of transcendence, the predecessor is a wholistic reference to both (that which it is transcendent of) and (that which is transcendent of it), and consequently, each predecessor is within the Domain of Discourse for all of its requisites.

(In a similar fashion to how each continent of Earth is within the Domain of Discourse for Earth, and Earth is only partially within the Domain of Discourse for any individual continent. Consider: "For the whole of Earth (that is within Africa) there exist trees." Given the Domain to be Africa, the parentheses take effect.)

9. ∵ Hence, using Domain of Discourse, our known reality (the universe) can be understood as (the one comprehensible constituent) of the transcendent.

10. ∵ Since the universe has its Domain within that of the transcendent Domain, this entails that the extent of that which is within the transcendent is always greater than or equal to the extent of that which is within the universe.

11. ∵ As stated, however, the universe is in place due to a transcendent cause, and thus, it is not greater than or equal to, but instead, the extent of the transcendent cause must be greater than to some degree, since there is a transcendence.
_____________________________

12. ∴ The universe is a universe-specific comprehensible portion of the transcendent, and the transcendent, all things within it included, extends at least to the highest extent to the universe's existence, and more.

⊢ Thus, the transcendent is omnipresent. (It contains the universe, and hence, it exists throughout it and extends beyond, even.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is omnipotent. (It extends the entirety of the universe, and so, there is no manner by which something within the universe could possibly overpower it, and that is by implication, all powerful.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is omniscient. (For a similar reason to omnipotence, if you extend all of the universe, there is no knowledge that the universe contains that is not contained by the transcendent.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is inscrutable. (Obviously; defined as such.)


So, for all practical understandings, the transcendent would be considered as close to a God figure as is even feasible, regardless of whether or not the transcendent actually follows our reasoning and laws, because we know the extent to which the transcendent must pursue (the extent of known reality and then some).

*As a note:

This reasoning follows for all transcendence that's beyond the transcendence of our own universe (if such states of affairs exist) due to the Domain of Discourse extensions. Mathematical induction was used for that part of the reasoning. It is provable from the premises. But all of that transcendence, even transcendence of that which is is transcendent to us, is still considered transcendent to us, so that step isn't necessary for the argument.

It only takes as many premises as it does because it requires that all reasoning involve things that are inside of known reality, rather than using the transcendent to demonstrate anything.

Notice how when we define characteristics for the transcendent, it is only and entirely based on the extent of the universe, leaving the actual transcendent pieces to still be inscrutable, so our characteristics are not in contradiction of its inscrutability, because we only ever speak of how the transcendent extends the universe, but we do not speak of it as a whole, which is where the inscrutability comes in. It has those characteristics as far as our universe extends, only. That is the key, here.

[rogoshtalmour]

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

Any conjectured Universe is contingent, therefore must come from something that necessarily exists (A Universe does not necessarily exist). An infinite number of past events for any Universe makes no logical sense. (Yes, I've been reading the William Lane Craig debates)

How about it atheists? Explain the transcendent cause (that is necessarily existent) according to your speculated worldview. Theists of course know that this cause is God. Why? Because the concept of "God" is defined to be necessarily existent. Numbers themselves are the only other conceivable necessarily existent, but they cannot create a contingency, like "God" is defined as being able to do.


( oh, if you want to say the Universe came from nothing try again, non-being logically has no physical laws )


well put

[darthearth]

well put

Thank you. The fact remains that theists have an argument for God being the transcendent cause, while atheists are forced to leave the question unaddressed.

Certainly could. It would be well-formed as well, and it would get us a genuinely convincing, valid argument for the existence of a God.

Let's start with yours.



4. ∵ Regardless of whether or not the transcendent cause has any presence in any realm of reality, incomprehensible to the observers of this reality or not, the universe is to be considered a wholistic reference to the transcendent cause, due to the transcendent cause being its cause.

5. ∵ If the universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent cause, then it is necessarily in the Domain of Discourse of the transcendent cause.

6. ∵ Hence, the universe is within the Domain of Discourse for the transcendent cause, but the transcendent cause is not necessarily within the Domain of Discourse for the universe.

7. ∵ "Regardless of whether or not the transcendent cause has any presence in any realm of reality, incomprehensible to the observers of this reality or not," the transcendent cause is itself a reference to the transcendent for the universe we inhabit (and the transcendent for any transcendence of itself).

8. ∵ In general, therefore, for the lineage of transcendence, the predecessor is a wholistic reference to both (that which it is transcendent of) and (that which is transcendent of it), and consequently, each predecessor is within the Domain of Discourse for all of its requisites.

(In a similar fashion to how each continent of Earth is within the Domain of Discourse for Earth, and Earth is only partially within the Domain of Discourse for any individual continent. Consider: "For the whole of Earth (that is within Africa) there exist trees." Given the Domain to be Africa, the parentheses take effect.)

9. ∵ Hence, using Domain of Discourse, our known reality (the universe) can be understood as (the one comprehensible constituent) of the transcendent.

10. ∵ Since the universe has its Domain within that of the transcendent Domain, this entails that the extent of that which is within the transcendent is always greater than or equal to the extent of that which is within the universe.

11. ∵ As stated, however, the universe is in place due to a transcendent cause, and thus, it is not greater than or equal to, but instead, the extent of the transcendent cause must be greater than to some degree, since there is a transcendence.
_____________________________

12. ∴ The universe is a universe-specific comprehensible portion of the transcendent, and the transcendent, all things within it included, extends at least to the highest extent to the universe's existence, and more.

⊢ Thus, the transcendent is omnipresent. (It contains the universe, and hence, it exists throughout it and extends beyond, even.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is omnipotent. (It extends the entirety of the universe, and so, there is no manner by which something within the universe could possibly overpower it, and that is by implication, all powerful.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is omniscient. (For a similar reason to omnipotence, if you extend all of the universe, there is no knowledge that the universe contains that is not contained by the transcendent.)

⊢ Further, the transcendent is inscrutable. (Obviously; defined as such.)


So, for all practical understandings, the transcendent would be considered as close to a God figure as is even feasible, regardless of whether or not the transcendent actually follows our reasoning and laws, because we know the extent to which the transcendent must pursue (the extent of known reality and then some).

*As a note:

This reasoning follows for all transcendence that's beyond the transcendence of our own universe (if such states of affairs exist) due to the Domain of Discourse extensions. Mathematical induction was used for that part of the reasoning. It is provable from the premises. But all of that transcendence, even transcendence of that which is is transcendent to us, is still considered transcendent to us, so that step isn't necessary for the argument.

It only takes as many premises as it does because it requires that all reasoning involve things that are inside of known reality, rather than using the transcendent to demonstrate anything.

Notice how when we define characteristics for the transcendent, it is only and entirely based on the extent of the universe, leaving the actual transcendent pieces to still be inscrutable, so our characteristics are not in contradiction of its inscrutability, because we only ever speak of how the transcendent extends the universe, but we do not speak of it as a whole, which is where the inscrutability comes in. It has those characteristics as far as our universe extends, only. That is the key, here.

Thank you for improving my argument so substantially. I'll just say in summary that my requirements for the transcendent cause and the definition of God that meet these requirements only extend as far as the transcendent extends our Universe. However these requirement are still valid in the Domain they are valid in.

[Emerald Dream]

Locked at OP request. :locked2: