The Universe Was Not Caused

[jedaisoul]

In the thread "The Physics of God" questor said:

If a creator did not create the universe then what happened? All of a sudden, for no reason we can discern, gravity, light, matter, superheated gases, and all physical laws suddenly appeared in a huge explosion. All this came with the future ability to continue expansion, forming vast stars and planets and life. We are to believe all of this is just a matter of coincidence, that there was no cause, yet our universe does not have any non-causal phenomenae.

I commented:

If the big bang theory is correct then time itself started with the big bang. Therefore the universe has existed "for all of time" even though it had a beginning. Also there was no time or place in which your putative creator existed. By suggesting that time, space and a creator existed before the big bang is simply saying that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe... I would suggest that just positing the existence of a creator does not resolve the question of when or why the universe came into existence.

 

In response, questor said:

You may think it is a logical fallacy, but we still don't know what happened or why. Arguing from what humans call ''logic'' does not answer all questions. The Big Bang does not strike me as a logical event. You seem to be arguing that the universe just ''happened''' for no reason and with no cause. That does not seem ''logical'' to me. I'm sure this argument has been hashed out many times over. The true answer is... we don't know what happened, how or why.

 

There appears to me to be two flaws in these comments:

• That logic is "human" and therefore fallible. I have addressed that in a separate thread "Logic is Absolute", in the Philosophy forum.
  
• That the universe could have a cause (a "creator").

The latter appears to be a common idea, so I felt that it deserved a separate thread...

 

Now, I accept that many people use the term "universe" loosely, and talk of multiple universes or multiple cycles of birth and death of this universe. In those terms, yes, something can have pre-exist "this universe" to cause it. However, arguably, that is not a very useful definition of the universe because it just leads to the questions: "so what caused the thing that caused this universe", "how did the whole process start"?

 

Which is why the scientific definition of "the universe" is "everything that has or does exist". It follows logically from this definition that nothing can have pre-existed the universe. Therefore the universe cannot be "caused" by anything, because if there was anything that pre-existed it, "it" is not the universe.

 

That is not a matter of opinion. It follows unaviodably from this definition of "the universe". It really is that simple. The universe did not, and cannot, have a cause; therefore there was no creator.

[C1ay]

That is not a matter of opinion. It follows unaviodably from this definition of "the universe". It really is that simple. The universe did not, and cannot, have a cause; therefore there was no creator.

 

Therein lies the flaw in this thread and others like it. You cannot deduce this to be a fact from logical analysis alone. We have no physical, observable evidence to draw any conclusions as to the origin of the universe, if there was one, or a cause. The only conclusion we can find is that we simply do not know. In the end such discussions are simply for the fun of philosophical debate because they cannot deliver the absolute truth.

 

OTOH, if you think you can PROVE that the universe did not, and cannot, have a cause; therefore there was no creator, have at it. I look forward to your evidence.

[jedaisoul]

You cannot deduce this to be a fact from logical analysis alone.

I appreciate your comments, but I do not agree that you cannot deduce this by pure logic. I just did! Where is the flaw in my logic?

 

You could say that it is a truism, because, if "the universe is everything that has or does exist" then it cannot be caused by anything outside it, because, by definition, there cannot be anything outside it. But being a truism does not make it any the less true.

 

Alternatively, you could argue that the universe was caused by itself. But the universe cannot pre-exist itself, so saying that it caused itself is the same as saying that there was no "external" cause.

 

I can't see any other argument you can make, but I'm willing to listen.

 

OTOH, if you think you can PROVE that the universe did not, and cannot, have a cause; therefore there was no creator, have at it. I look forward to your evidence.

I cannot prove it in a scientific sense, with evidence, but I believe that I have proved it in a philosophic sense, with logic. Hence why this thread is not in the science forum.

 

Thanks again for your comments.

[C1ay]

You could say that it is a truism, because, if "the universe is everything that has or does exist" then it cannot be caused by anything outside it, because, by definition, there cannot be anything outside it.

 

By whose definition? According to a recent study the universe we know is about a 156 billion light-years wide. This is a finite volume of which we know nothing about what lies outside. You cannot deduce logically that this volume is all there is, that there is nothing outside this volume.

[Majik]

I cannot prove it in a scientific sense, with evidence, but I believe that I have proved it in a philosophic sense, with logic.

 

So by this you are saying that logic has precidence over the entire universe. You're saying that reason is the basis of the universe. That logic created the universe. Could we not also see this logic as God Himself, knowing all things, determines all facts, existing everywhere at all times.

[jedaisoul]

By whose definition? According to a recent study the universe we know is about a 156 billion light-years wide. This is a finite volume of which we know nothing about what lies outside. You cannot deduce logically that this volume is all there is, that there is nothing outside this volume.

I hoped that I'd clearly delineated betweer this universe and the universe. As I said, this universe could be caused by an outside agent. God, the re-cycling of a previous instance of "this" universe, anything. I don't claim to know whether it was caused or not, and I'm definately not claiming to prove logically whether there is anything outside it or not.

 

But if you take this universe and whatever caused it (if anything), and whatever caused that (if anything) and so on, you arrive at the universe. The whole shebang. Everything. Once you have defined "eveything" there can't be anything outside it, otherwise it would not be everything.

 

Therefore the universe (the whole shebang) cannot have an external cause. Where is the flaw in that logic?

 

One thing I would add, is, if the universe cannot have an external cause, yet it blatantly exists, what reason is there to presume that this universe had an external cause? THIS IS NOT PROOF. It merely supports the view that this universe does not have to have a cause. The alternative, that it just happened, is viable, albeit not proven.

 

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it is important to distinguish between "this universe" and "the universe" in the statements I've made.

[jedaisoul]

So by this you are saying that logic has precidence over the entire universe. You're saying that reason is the basis of the universe. That logic created the universe. Could we not also see this logic as God Himself, knowing all things, determines all facts, existing everywhere at all times.

No I'm not saying any of those things. Logic is a process, and as such it is an absolute (or so I'm claiming). Please see the thread "Logic is Absolute" in the Philosophy forum for more details.

[Tormod]

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it is important to distinguish between "this universe" and "the universe" in the statements I've made.

 

I disagree with your claim as to what the "scientific" definition of the universe is. There are several definitions, and only a few support your statement.

 

IMHO your argument is fundamentally flawed because you rely on semantics to build a logical argument that is circular. No matter how you define "Universe", your argument is basically that "since it exists, nothing had to cause it".

 

If by your reasoning you can build a logical argument that the universe did not need a beginning by dodging the "what was before", then you have in effect also proven that God (or I, or the FSM) created the universe.

 

Why? Because your argument claims that there was nothing "before" the universe and thus you cannot explain how it came into being (because it has always been here). Yet you open the possibility that *something* was there before, but you claim to know what it was (ie, a part of our universe), which is another circular reasoning.

 

A good read on cosmology and the problem of origin is found in John Barrow's brilliant essay collection, "Impossibility - the science of limits and the limits of science".

[jedaisoul]

I disagree with your claim as to what the "scientific" definition of the universe is. There are several definitions, and only a few support your statement.

I agree that there are scientific definitions of "this universe" that are different from "the universe". I used the "this" and "the" to distinguish them. Thank you for confirming that there are accepted scientific definitions of "the universe" that support my statement.

 

IMHO your argument is fundamentally flawed because you rely on semantics to build a logical argument that is circular. No matter how you define "Universe", your argument is basically that "since it exists, nothing had to cause it".

No, my argument is, "since it exists, and is everything that ever existed, nothing external caused it". I myself called it a "truism". I have been explicit in saying that it follows automatically from the definition of the universe given above.

 

If by your reasoning you can build a logical argument that the universe did not need a beginning by dodging the "what was before", then you have in effect also proven that God (or I, or the FSM) created the universe.

No, I do not claim that the universe did not need a beginning. Indeed I specifically said:"If the big bang theory is correct then time itself started with the big bang. Therefore the universe has existed 'for all of time' even though it had a beginning".

 

A good read on cosmology and the problem of origin is found in John Barrow's brilliant essay collection, "Impossibility - the science of limits and the limits of science".

Thanks for this tip, and for your comments.

[C1ay]

I agree that there are scientific definitions of "this universe" that are different from "the universe". I used the "this" and "the" to distinguish them.

 

"The universe" is normally defined to be "all that we know there is." That does not mean that "the universe" is in fact all there is or ever has been.

 

No, my argument is, "since it exists, and is everything that ever existed, nothing external caused it".

 

That it exists does not mean that it is all that ever existed. Those properties are not necessarily inclusive. We know nothing about anything that may or may not exist outside the universe as we know it or predate "the" universe as we know it.

 

"If the big bang theory is correct then time itself started with the big bang. Therefore the universe has existed 'for all of time' even though it had a beginning".

 

You cannot deduce that time itself started with the Big Bang just because there was a Big Bang. Time itself could be infinite with no beginning at all.

[questor]

Human Semantics and human logic occur from the human brain, which may not have reached the ultimate in development. There may be new brain pathways that ultimately develop which will impact what we now view as logic. I cannot imagine the BB being a logical event, nor can i imagine any other theory of non-creation as logical. I can imagine a supernatural force of some sort creating the universe since all observable phenomenae have a cause. It is difficult to argue logic when confronted with an observable illogical event.

[C1ay]

Human Semantics and human logic occur from the human brain, which may not have reached the ultimate in development.

 

That doesn't matter. The Big Bang formed an event horizon that limits what we can observe. If there is anything beyond that horizon we will never know it unless our expanding universe encounters extra-universal mass, bringing it within our field of observation.

[HydrogenBond]

Logic is based on cause and affect, so it is similar to drawings on the 2-D plane of cause and affect. If we had all possible data points we may be able to draw the perfect drawing. But as long as points are missing, logic is like connect the dots with dots missing. At that point anything is possible. When all the dots are there, then everyone will draw the same conclusions.

 

For example, the only data point we have is two females holding hands. One can use logic and conclude maybe they are girlfriends. I add another data dot, that says, they both have the same last name. Now logic says, sisters. The next data dot says, but one spells its Baker and other Backer. Now logic says they are girlfriends, again. Next, we add another data dot; one of the two ladies is blind. Logic now says one is the caregiver. We add another dot; they just met each other about an hour ago. Now logic says, one is a kind person helping the blind lady. Then I add another dot, "see what that kind lady just did, she took the blind lady's wallet. Now logic says that women is a thief. I then I add another dot, "look she took out just enough money so the blind women can pay the taxi and returned her wallet". Now logic says, do you have any more data, you're making sound logic look bad.

[jedaisoul]

"The universe" is normally defined to be "all that we know there is." That does not mean that "the universe" is in fact all there is or ever has been.

I acknowledge that the definition you gave is appropriate for most scientiic usage, and I have tried to distinguish between that usage of the word "universe" and a more philosophic definition that I have used. It would be better if there were separate words for "all that we know exists", and "all there is or ever has been".

 

Also there is a problem with the definition "all that we know exists", because what we know grows and changes all the time. So there is a need for a term that implies "all there is or ever has been". It is in that sense that I'm using the term "the universe" to distinguish it from "this universe".

 

That it exists does not mean that it is all that ever existed. Those properties are not necessarily inclusive. We know nothing about anything that may or may not exist outside the universe as we know it or predate "the" universe as we know it.

Please see above. If you can suggest a better form of words to distinguish these two meanings, then I'd be very grateful. Most of the comments so far revolve around these different definitions rather than the validity of my argument.

 

You cannot deduce that time itself started with the Big Bang just because there was a Big Bang. Time itself could be infinite with no beginning at all.

I was merely expressing what I believed to be an accepted part of the big bang theory. If that is not so, then I'm happy to accept your correction. It is peripheral to my argument.

[jedaisoul]

Human Semantics and human logic occur from the human brain, which may not have reached the ultimate in development. There may be new brain pathways that ultimately develop which will impact what we now view as logic.

The capacity of the human mind to comprehend logic is not the point.

 

I cannot imagine the BB being a logical event, nor can i imagine any other theory of non-creation as logical. I can imagine a supernatural force of some sort creating the universe since all observable phenomenae have a cause.

I understand your concerns, and I'm sure they are widely felt. But you appear to be confusing "logic" with personal preference or belief.

 

It is difficult to argue logic when confronted with an observable illogical event.

Indeed. I think that is the best thing you have said. If you equate "logical" with "having a logical cause", then an un-caused event is "illogical". However, that is an ideosyncratic usage of the term "illogical".

 

Thanks for your comments.

[jedaisoul]

Logic is based on cause and affect, so it is similar to drawings on the 2-D plane of cause and affect. If we had all possible data points we may be able to draw the perfect drawing. But as long as points are missing, logic is like connect the dots with dots missing. At that point anything is possible.

I disagree. I see logic as being a process of making explicit things which are implicit in the asumptions you started with. If something is not implicit in the assumptions, then you cannot logically deduce it from them. So, in the context of a given piece of logical deduction, it is not true to say "anything is possible". Within that context, only that which is already implicit is possible.

 

When all the dots are there, then everyone will draw the same conclusions.

If that were only true. Sadly many (if not most) people rely more on their beliefs rather than what is logical. So mere logic is unlikely to convince them of things they do not believe to be true, particularly if the conclusions directly oppose what they believe to be true.

 

For example, the only data point we have is two females holding hands. One can use logic and conclude maybe they are girlfriends. I add another data dot, that says, they both have the same last name. Now logic says, sisters. The next data dot says, but one spells its Baker and other Backer. Now logic says they are girlfriends, again. Next, we add another data dot; one of the two ladies is blind. Logic now says one is the caregiver. We add another dot; they just met each other about an hour ago. Now logic says, one is a kind person helping the blind lady. Then I add another dot, "see what that kind lady just did, she took the blind lady's wallet. Now logic says that women is a thief. I then I add another dot, "look she took out just enough money so the blind women can pay the taxi and returned her wallet". Now logic says, do you have any more data, you're making sound logic look bad.

This is an example of "fuzzy logic", which, as I've said, is an illogical process. Its obvious flaws are not caused by flaws in the logic used, but by the assumptions which prove to be inappropriate.

[rockytriton]

Let's add another data dot, the year is some time in the 1980's, now my logic says the two girls are just standing next to each other and participating in "hands across america". :)