There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe

There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe

1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused

The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who argues for the eternal existence of God?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jJ4clTBcSfc
youtube.com/watch?v=O0aXHJ8Mfw0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The universe doesn't need a cause to exist

It exists because why shouldn't it exist?

The universe has no beginning or end, it just is.

Bump

It goes both ways believing in god just adds another step to the question that can't be answered. How was the universe created? Was it always here? Maybe... Did god create the universe? Well then who created god? maybe he was always there? Maybe... either way we don't have the answers so believe what ever you want and realize that a debate about religion vs science is a complete waste of time. It will eventually come to a point where each side doesn't have a answer and your stuck at same place you started at.

what if non-existence can't exist, therefore we exist?

This to be honest desu senpai

It does have a beginning.

Every effect needs a cause.

>not realising that the closer in time you get to the big bang the less the laws of physics apply and the less it makes sense to humans
There's a reason the next generation of theists with IQs over 120 leave this shit to the scientists.

everything in the universe needs a cause

the universe itself doesnt

There can't "be" nothing, because if nothing were to "be", then there would be something.

Do you understand?

Nothing is a self inconsistency.

Does this help your understanding at all?

Also, does this "first cause" operate without time? If so, how?

Holy shit? Is this what passes for "philosophy"? It's just playing language games.

Existence, exists only insofar as it is an expression of the things which contain it. To claim otherwise is to suggest that there is an up, without affirming that there is a down. One necessarily implies the other.

Define non existence

Lack of all there is, was, and ever will be, which is an impossibility

Yes it does.

That is special pleading. The same thing you accuse people who believe in God of doing.

You mean possess it.

There is no contrast to existence, how can it have meaning?
Mfw existential nihilism

God is the only possible explanation for existence.

You will not exist forever.

Exactly, it is only a concept. Which is why I said it was an impossibility. Mfw retard

God is either

1. Uncaused
2. Self caused
3. Caused

Go on I'll wait, pick one.

Secret option 4

God's not real

your entire argument applies to this supposed creator of the universe.
1. uncaused
2. self-caused
3. caused
etc. etc. infinite regress

I will apply occam's razor and remove your creator.

Thanks for trying though.

What if logic doesn't apply to it at all?

You are insulting me, why?

Op's face when he realizes Black Holes are sub-universes, the Big Bang is what happens inside of a black hole as it forms, and everything we're aware of is inhabiting the interior of a black hole.

He mistakes the universe for all that exists, then he implies that god isn't subjected to his logic. Existence includes everything, even god if god were to exist.

Based Razor

...said the least contemplative man on earth.

>yfw it's all 3

Reality is a paradox get used to it

Because this is Sup Forums. Go back to your tiny hillary rally

k :D

it's kind of step one in terms of logical thought.
I'm not sure why it gets disregarded to frequently.

>tfw pantheism

I always found this the most compelling argument for theism. I'm not even bothered with the argument that this reasoning would apply to a diety, since a monotheistic diety could be supposed to have properties that universe does not. However, the other evidence for such a being (at least, one that takes the slightest interest in us) is lacking.

God, in the sense of a single, infinite being, must be uncaused and nondeceiving by definition

The Universe is the matter contianed in space time.
Space time is a dimension, it cannot have begun and cannot end anymore than length, width, or height could have.
Matter is a complex waveform, it is caused by electromagnetic wavefields interacting with eachother. The Universe has to have had a beginning or it could not exist. What caused that begining is still being investigated.

I sure hope you're not trying to define something into existence, there, Billy...

Sometimes I wonder if Spinoza was on to something
>Monads
>Modes

who created god?

You stupid fucks, WE ARE GOD

Because Occam's Razor. Sure, it's *possible* to have an uncaused creator, but there is no evidence for such a thing, and there is evidence for an uncaused universe. It's adding a needless layer of complication to things.

(You)

I'm saying that a god would have to be uncaused if it was real. It's an essential aspect. That which is inferior can never be a god, and caused things are inferior to their causes

>The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

Non sequitur

Not prior to the existence of time.

God exists outside of the relm in which he created and dictated the laws he remains the before and after the alpha and Omega. You dont understand why the Christian God is unquie in his cosmology by being outside of the laws of time nature etc and thus why he could very well exist

Yeah. Sounds like you are. Let me know when you get past the conceptual stages of god and get into some real, solid arguments.

We know for a fact that the universe exists.

We do not kn ow for a fact that a deity exists.

Therefore, the suggestion which is more supported is the one which plays into what we already know for certain. Is it *possible* that an uncaused God is the cause of our universe? Sure, but it's infinitely more complex and less evidenced than an uncaused universe.

christfags get out

REEEEEEEEE

You don't need to. The question here is not if a god exists. The question is if a god would operate on the same principles as the universe as to existence and causation. A god fundamentally cannot, or it wouldn't be a god

and now apply that same bullshit to the smallest piece of thing that ever was and tada
The problem with religions wordy excuses used to get god out of the "yeah but no one had to create god himself because of reasons" problem is that it can be applied to literal anything that happend in the long past that no one knows not just "god".
You could make the same non fact base excuses for the smallest ever universe that then expanded "no one had to create the universe" with no facts is no different than "no one had to create god" with no facts.

The Sikhs belief is that Waheguru created everything by a single word. Waheguru is in charge of all life and without his hukam (will) nothing can exist, change or develop.

>2. Self-caused
obviously

My guess is that it would have to operate under some sort of causal nature, otherwise any agent would be unable to explain how it would work, which is why god likely doesn't exist.

yea. this.

You clearly dont have great english skills. He doesnt mean a purpose like a political or social cause. He means cause as in cause and effect. Philosophically, everything that exists is the effect of a cause.

One could argue that the word "nothing" would limit our scope. Yes, their may be an absence of 99.99% of things, but there will always remain somthing regardless of how little.

However, if that 00.01% of somthing remaining is useless or dull, like one single grain of sand for example, you may as well say there is nothing since that one grain of sand alone can't achieve anything else other than just existing.

That's how the concept of "nothing" arises. You see a no functional use for a thing, so it's disregarded. People just expand that to the point where existence never happened.

The smallest thing is inferior to that which made it. If our universe is from another, or in a blackhole as one suggested, it's inferior to the one encompassing it and brings us to the same result as, "what made the Earth? The Universe! What made that?" except now we have a megaverse to deal with. It's a nonsolution

That's fair

>The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.
Prove to me that the universe actually exists.

I consider the universe, which can neither be finite nor infinite, to be a complete paradox and not real.

Nothing existed before except God. God was in his abstract form until he willed for the creation of universe and God diffused into the nature of universe.

I think. I exist. I, at least, am the Universe. Where did I come from?

Einstein's equations prove otherwise.

Something is definitely uncaused, but is it the universe or a deity that is the Uncaused?

youtube.com/watch?v=jJ4clTBcSfc

god is also not a solution because every excuse you make for "god exited always" can also be made for the universe.

I believe theres a macrocosmos which we cannot uncover due to our sensory limitations.
Just imagine that an atom is to you as earth is in terms of size. No way you could have the slightest idea of what a galaxy is, let alone their creation.

youtube.com/watch?v=O0aXHJ8Mfw0

I'm not even arguing for a god. I'm saying your conception of what one would be is contrary to what deists do. You say it's an orange, they say it's not a banana and you guys fight over what that means

This is a bit like Wittgenstein's lion. If a lion could speak, one could argue that we could understand it. But in fact even if we could translate lionspeak to English, we could not understand it because we would have different concepts of meaning.

So even if we could turn the laws of the universe into mathematical terms that doesn't mean we could understand it, or that we could prove facts of the universe from our logic. If logic already breaks down at quantum level, it only makes sense that it would break down even more at such a deep level as the origin of the universe.

Thomas Aquinas was a genius, but even geniuses are limited by the common knowledge of their times. This causation argument is weak by today's standards.

Stupid people arguing about the origin of the universe. Just stop, retards.
You will never know. Your arguments are shit, and even if you correctly guess and articulate the answer that happens to be right, you have no means of checking if it's actually true.

You'll die in 10-60 years. I can't think of any bigger waste of time than arguing about where the universe came from. It would be a better use of your time to masturbate to some My Little Pony.

That's very defeatist and pathetic of you. The achievements of society came from men trying to dominate nature and to understand it, so even if it seems pointless you could be helping to lay the foundations for the next generations and so on. It's a matter of legacy, working for the future so that just like we can stand in the shoulders of giants they can do the same in the future.

I hate people like you and sometimes I think that kind of apathy toward discovery and toward leaving a legacy is very common in Europe.

Leave the discussion to smart people is what I am saying. None of you faggots are going to crack the code and figure out the universe.

WOAH!! GOD EXISTS AND GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE!! SOME GUY ON Sup Forums SAID SO!! WOW!

What the fuck? You're all losers. You're completely delusional. What the fuck are you doing posting on a Vietnamese Mango board trying to convince other people on your shitty half-baked ''theories'' for the origin of the universe.

What's wrong with talking about things you're interested in? First of all you don't know what everyone is studying here, and second there's nothing wrong with sharing your opinions on things you're not an expert in.
Don't you talk about politics with friends? About sports? About the economy? You can't be an expert on all those things, at best you can be at one or two.
You seem really triggered for some reason.

The universe was never in a state of non-existence.
Stating as such implies that is existence other than the universe, or that there was ever a "before" the universe.

The universe is a closed system.
We are part of the system, observing it from within.
We can never prove how a system came to be, as we will never have complete knowledge of it.

>There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe
>three
you fucked up

>The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.
That's a hell of a leap, right there. If God can be eternal so can the universe. In fact, all evidence shows nothing can be created or destroyed.

Show me a cause without a preceding cause. The chain goes to infinity in both directions.

If anybody want's the Cliff Notes of this thread just google "Cosmological Argument".

We're not in /philosophy or /metaphysics
Go away!

I just think God was scared of being alone (our language for the default mathematical possibility/state) and an hero'd the universe into existence. k bye

That's what he just said dumbass.

Not even gonna read the replies. Adding complexity is not preferable. Simpler explanation is better, thus an uncaused universe is a better explanation than an uncaused God causing the universe.