If God "just exists", why can't the universe?

[automatthew]

I started this thread to try and make a silk purse from a sow's ear. In the "Most Convincing Atheist Argument" thread, phantaz sunlyk posed a question which I'll paraphrase and expand:

If God "just exists", why can't the universe? It is common for theists to maintain that the divine entity we call God has no cause, no source or creator, no explanation. God just IS. If it is legitimate to say that one entity "just is", why isn't it legitimate to claim that same nature for other entities?

I responded so:

The question, I think, partakes at best of the flippant. But then I remembered how often Chesterton was accused of flippantry when he was mortally serious, and I wondered whether I couldn't do the opposite and from the frivolous fashion the profound.

Before I weigh in on this topic, I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. How would you all address this question?

[Piebald]

Can't it be demonstrated that the Universe began to exist at some point?

[smilax]

The universe is mutable. Therefore, the universe is contingent. Therefore, the universe cannot "just exist."

Or maybe change is an illusion? And if we look at things from an eternal/omnipresent space-time perspective, it's static! Hmm...

[phantaz sunlyk]

say hey automatthew.
yes, i'm a Christian. actually, i'm also a philosophy major in college too. :thumb:
a person who believes in the eternality of the universe can concomittantly affirm belief in the eternality of personhood, or affirm that that which constitutes personhood has existed eternally. hence not absurd.
if the universe needs to be explained because it is so complex, etc., etc., then God, who is infinitely more complex, etc., etc., needs an explanation as well. and so on ad infinitum. if God, who is infinitely complex, needn't a creator, then why does the universe, which is infinitely less complex?
since something obviously does exist, isn't the simplest supposition that we, and the universe, are the end-point of explanation?
again, this isn't to suggest that i (ultimately) deny either the cosmo or the teleo arguments strength. just seein' what y'all think.
peace in Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey coolman--

The universe is mutable. Therefore, the universe is contingent. Therefore, the universe cannot "just exist."

**7** define "mutable"? not trans-identical at every moment?
next, why is it logically impossible for something that is not logically necessary to exist a se?
peace in Christ.

[flipper]

There is a weight of evidence that suggests this universe did indeed have a beginning, which is why this question is a strangely pointless one.

The great unknown is what existed before the big bang, and what caused it? There are some tentative hypotheses but they exist entirely in the realms of theoretical math and may do so forever.

Goddidit is the convenient cop out it's always been and really explains nothing. As God (or Gods) have been demonstrated to have not done it after all across a wide array of previously intractable physical phenomena, why then should we not proceed as if there was no God or Gods at all? Naturalism has served us well in the past and I see no reason why it will not continue to do so.

You will hear that every effect must have its cause. As Phantaz Sunlyk observed, the god or gods have a strange immunity from this. There could not possibly be any other force, known or unknown, that could also be eternal or its own causeless cause. Absolutely not. No way, Jose.

I do enjoy that sort of absolute statement in the absence of evidence. Please note that my own disbelief in any kind of deity is rooted on a balance of probability a) past scientific record vs theologies of all kinds and b) the general lack of parity between all of the diverse creation myths and where the evidence actually seems to take us. There is some room for manoeuvre - Gerald Schroeder makes an interesting case for an more allegorical OT creation that parallels what it is we actually seem to observe - but personally I'm not convinced. There are all sorts of tricks we can employ to tweak a description after the fact to make it fit what we actually see, and I don't see enough extraordinary evidence in Genesis (or any of the other creation stories) to find this compelling. Your mileage may vary.

[automatthew]

Hey buddy, could you clarify the following statement:

a person who believes in the eternality of the universe can concomittantly affirm belief in the eternality of personhood, or affirm that that which constitutes personhood has existed eternally. hence not absurd.

I think I have a good (read: supported by Tom the Eagle) answer, but that's only if my understanding of your post is correct.

matthew

[smilax]

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** define "mutable"? not trans-identical at every moment?Sounds good to me.next, why is it logically impossible for something that is not logically necessary to exist a se?Again, contingency. Because the thing is contingent upon other factors, its existence is a possibility, but not a logical necessity. As a result, something else governs the things existence, and that throws a se existence out the window.flipper:
You will hear that every effect must have its cause. As Phantaz Sunlyk observed, the god or gods have a strange immunity from this. There could not possibly be any other force, known or unknown, that could also be eternal or its own causeless cause. Absolutely not. No way, Jose.God is non-contingent. An effect, on the other hand, is by definition logically dependent on something else.

[flipper]

God is non-contingent. An effect, on the other hand, is by definition logically dependent on something else.

Yeah, see, you just went and said exactly what I said you'd say.

God is non-contingent.

And we know this how, exactly?

[smilax]

flipper:
And we know this how, exactly?It's called a definition...

[automatthew]

This topic can go so many places. I'm tempted.

At some point in the not-unforeseeable future, I'll be starting a scientific-heresies thread elsewhere in the forum. 'Til then, I'll be content with this: I know of several serious (read: used to be respected and accepted by peer-reviewed journals, until they challenged the religion) atheist scientists who present compelling arguments to the effect that the Big Bang is a complete crock. Short presentation: The Big Bang is tenaciously clung to by naturalists because it's the only cosmogonical theory that plugs a huge hole in the mainstream theory of gravity. Piqued? Start a cosmology/cosmogony thread and, barring the sudden onset of sloth, I'll elaborate.

[flipper]

Smilax:

>It's called a definition...

So defining something makes it real, does it?

So let's assume we find some evidence that effectively proves a tentative universe creation hypothesis (which unlike your God postulate may at least have some mathematical foundation). Let's say we discover our universe is a bubble derived from a larger quantum universe or some other theoretical construction which is eternal or outside time in some way. Would that be God too?

[flipper]

Yup, tenaciously clung to. No one dare challenge the orthodoxy or their careers will be DESTROYED!!!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html

[Pate]

automatthew:
If God "just exists", why can't the universe? It is common for theists to maintain that the divine entity we call God has no cause, no source or creator, no explanation. God just IS.

Big Bang-cosmology and the 2nd law of thermodynamic, when applied to the whole universe, seem to indicate, that universe is not eternal.

Also, W. L. Craig and others would argue that it's impossible that the series of past events is actually infinite, because that leads to contradictions and that the infinite series of past event could not be formed successively. Put another way, this latter argument could be stated:

If there's an actual infinite number of events before the present moment, how could this presen moment arrive?

[smilax]

flipper:
So defining something makes it real, does it?Not at all. We simply labelled the "non-contingent being" God. But from non-contingency, it follows that God exists. For example, if I defined God as a square circle, then God would not exist.So let's assume we find some evidence that effectively proves a tentative universe creation hypothesis (which unlike your God postulate may at least have some mathematical foundation).Wrong. The big bang falls because topologically, contact singularities (the metric is represented by a one-form) represent irreversibility, so the universe would never start if there were an initial singularity. Even Hawking doesn't believe it anymore. And if you want to know why physicists never thought of this before, it's because most don't know a thing about differential topology.

If you want to do a mapping, you could say God is the point at infinity for the compactification of possible worlds.Let's say we discover our universe is a bubble derived from a larger quantum universe or some other theoretical construction which is eternal or outside time in some way. Would that be God too?Yes, by a different name, unless the universe is theoretically self-contradictory.

[Pate]

phantaz sunlyk:
if the universe needs to be explained because it is so complex, etc., etc., then God, who is infinitely more complex, etc., etc., needs an explanation as well. and so on ad infinitum. if God, who is infinitely complex, needn't a creator, then why does the universe, which is infinitely less complex?

In what sense is God infinitely more complex than the universe? By what definition of complexity?

Swinburne, for example, would disagree very strongly. Actually, I don't remember any christian philosopher who says that God is infinitely complex.

[flipper]

Wrong. The big bang falls because topologically, contact singularities (the metric is represented by a one-form) represent irreversibility, so the universe would never start if there were an initial singularity. Even Hawking doesn't believe it anymore. And if you want to know why physicists never thought of this before, it's because most don't know a thing about differential topology.

Well, true enough as far as Hawking's position goes but this is a blind alley as I don't think I was claiming that the big bang was caused by a singularity. We're arguing about causes, remember? Consider my use of the term "big bang" as one that describes the apparent and dramatic inflation of the universe.

As far as your comments on differential topology; it was being taught in the 1960s and 70s as a tool to study relativity as space time so it has obviously been informing physicists and cosmologists, at least in some of the more prestigious universities. I understand it is being used for heavier lifting these days by those quantum gravity guys. Not to mention those superstring fiddlers (hint: look at the link posted above).

[flipper]

Smilax:

Yes, by a different name, unless the universe is theoretically self-contradictory

Explain why this would make the universe self-contradictory?

[smilax]

flipper:
As far as your comments on differential topology; it was being taught in the 1960s and 70s as a tool to study relativity as space time so it has obviously been informing physicists and cosmologists, at least in some of the more prestigious universities. I understand it is being used for heavier lifting these days by those quantum gravity guys.True enough, but they weren't seriously looking into applications until fairly recently.Not to mention those superstring fiddlers (hint: look at the link posted above). Yes, much fun. But I am not sure how the Ekpyrotic universe is eternal/omnipresent.Explain why this would make the universe self-contradictory?I didn't say it would. I said "unless."

[flipper]

smilax wrote:

Yes, much fun. But I am not sure how the Ekpyrotic universe is eternal/omnipresent.

No, I don't think it is and it's no more than a tentative theoretical hypothesis until it is tested experimentally against the inflationary model.

I didn't say it would. I said "unless."

That's true, you did. It's a bit late here and I apologise for misquoting you. Could you expand (ha ha) a bit more on it anyway?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey-- by saying "why can't the universe just 'exist'?", i intend to be understood anything not caused by a personal God, and not merely the spatio-temporal universe as it subsists in its present modalities.
peace.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Pate. you asked--

In what sense is God infinitely more complex than the universe? By what definition of complexity?

**7** in saying that something is "complex" i mean that a thing (or event) is such that an explanation thereof recedes in proportion to acquaintance with its (or, "with its alleged") coordinate totality.
it is easy to explain why this or that is so depending on your frame of reference. ...
you asked--

Swinburne, for example, would disagree very strongly. Actually, I don't remember any christian philosopher who says that God is infinitely complex.

**7** (arrrrrrr, i LOVE richard swinburne!!!! keeping in mind that i'm playing the devil's advocate ...)
but swinburne is all over the place, and this bit of his work is especially controversial. for example, see what happens to his theory of "simplicity" in his _the christian god_ wherein he tries to argue for the necessity of God being three!
next, while it is true that Christians traditionally adhere to the "simplicity" of God, this is not the same as saying that AN ACCOUNTING OF THIS GOD is anything less than absolutely complex. if you doubt me, research the history of apophatic theology in Christianity. see also (ironically) christopher hughes' _on a complex theory of a simple god_.
...or, you can just try and explain it to me yourself.
peace in Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey automatthew. i merely meant to state that, basically, a certain sort of dualism (matter/personality) is not logically impossible.
peace in Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey smilax. (grin)
if that definition of immutable works for you, then it necessarily follows that God cannot be both a Trinity and immutable at the same time.
next, i distinguish between ontological and metaphysical necessity. something is ontologically necessary if and only if an expression of its non-existence results in a logically incoherent expression.
something is metaphysically necessary if and only if it, in virtue of its properties, exists in every actual world.
i affirm that God has the latter, but feel that the former (the ontological argument) is either an accident with words, or so absolutely unclear as to be ineffective (atleast for me).
also, today at 12 noon i did my daily break-dancing routine. as of this moment right now, is that event "necessary"?
that something does exist proves that something can exist.
peace in Christ.

[Pate]

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** in saying that something is "complex" i mean that a thing (or event) is such that an explanation thereof recedes in proportion to acquaintance with its (or, "with its alleged" ) coordinate totality.


:huh:

I'm sorry, but I'm having some trouble understanding this. Can you rephrase it? (I guess the fact that English is not my native language, is an adequate defense for my lack of comprehension here. ;))