Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Wouldn't it be obvious that the ball is causing the depression? That if the cushion existed eternally without the ball, there would be no depression? So the ball is causing something that would not have happened otherwise.

Again, Aristotelian causation is a description of change. If there is no change, Aristotle's understanding of causation breaks down.

The fact that a system would be different if we were to discuss an entirely different system is a very different concept from Aristotelian causation. The ball is not "causing" anything, in the Aristotelian sense, as no change is being effected. If Dr. Craig wants to discuss some other notion of causality, he is free to do so. However, he cannot pretend that the implications of Aristotelian causality apply to all formulations of causality.

For instance:

Even if one were to grant the A-Theory upon which Dr. Craig frames this particular quote, it does not seem to make much sense. If we are talking about a cause which is simultaneous with its effect, then the effect is already actual. There is no need to explain how a potentiality becomes actualized-- we're discussing something which is already actualized. Those of us who propose a past-finite model of the universe, even on the A-Theory, do not think that the universe was ever a potentiality awaiting actualization.

[seer]

Again, Aristotelian causation is a description of change. If there is no change, Aristotle's understanding of causation breaks down.

The fact that a system would be different if we were to discuss an entirely different system is a very different concept from Aristotelian causation. The ball is not "causing" anything, in the Aristotelian sense, as no change is being effected. If Dr. Craig wants to discuss some other notion of causality, he is free to do so. However, he cannot pretend that the implications of Aristotelian causality apply to all formulations of causality.

Well I think you would have to ask Mr. Craig about the Aristotelian thing, but I think it is obvious that the ball is causing the depression. No ball no depression.

Even if one were to grant the A-Theory upon which Dr. Craig frames this particular quote, it does not seem to make much sense. If we are talking about a cause which is simultaneous with its effect, then the effect is already actual. There is no need to explain how a potentiality becomes actualized-- we're discussing something which is already actualized. Those of us who propose a past-finite model of the universe, even on the A-Theory, do not think that the universe was ever a potentiality awaiting actualization.

So you don't believe that the universe has a cause? There is no reason why it exists?

[shunyadragon]

Well I think you would have to ask Mr. Craig about the Aristotelian thing, . . . .

This is vary much a part of the discussion. Do you agree with Craig or not?

. . . but I think it is obvious that the ball is causing the depression. No ball no depression.

Not accurate nor obvious at all. The ball responds to forces of nature that cause gravity. The ball is not a cause.



So you don't believe that the universe has a cause? There is no reason why it exists?[/QUOTE]

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well I think you would have to ask Mr. Craig about the Aristotelian thing, but I think it is obvious that the ball is causing the depression. No ball no depression.

Again, that's perfectly fine. That's simply not Aristotelian causation, and the implications of Aristotelian causation do not necessarily imply to such a scenario.

So you don't believe that the universe has a cause? There is no reason why it exists?

I do not believe that the universe had a "cause" in the Aristotelian sense, and I do not believe that there was ever a state in which the universe did not exist. As for a "reason" why it exists, I believe that we can descriptively explain the existence of the universe, but I do not believe that there is any entity which acted in order to bring the universe into existence.

[seer]

Again, that's perfectly fine. That's simply not Aristotelian causation, and the implications of Aristotelian causation do not necessarily imply to such a scenario.

OK, but isn't obvious to you too that the ball is causing the depression?

I do not believe that the universe had a "cause" in the Aristotelian sense, and I do not believe that there was ever a state in which the universe did not exist. As for a "reason" why it exists, I believe that we can descriptively explain the existence of the universe, but I do not believe that there is any entity which acted in order to bring the universe into existence.

So the universe did not begin? I'm not understanding. Isn't the universe finite?

[shunyadragon]

So you don't believe that the universe has a cause? There is no reason why it exists?

Sorry I missed this. I believe that Boxing Pythagoras is referring to a Natural Cause. In other words as per his view he does not believe an external cause is necessary.

[seer]

This is vary much a part of the discussion. Do you agree with Craig or not?



Not accurate nor obvious at all. The ball responds to forces of nature that cause gravity. The ball is not a cause.



So you don't believe that the universe has a cause? There is no reason why it exists?

Go away...

[shunyadragon]

Go away...

No.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, but isn't obvious to you too that the ball is causing the depression?

It entirely depends upon what you mean by "cause." If you simply mean that the ball is preventing the cushion from expanding to its full volume, I absolutely agree that this is obvious. If you mean that the ball created a depression where no depression previously existed, then it most certainly is not the cause of the depression.

So the universe did not begin? I'm not understanding. Isn't the universe finite?

Whether the universe is past-finite or past-infinite, there was never a state in which the universe did not exist. So, if your definition of "begins to exist" relies upon a thing not existing and then, subsequently, being brought into existence, then it is nonsensical to claim that the universe began.

If, however, you adopt a definition like that utilized by Dr. Craig, then even a thing which has literally always existed can "begin to exist."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sorry I missed this. I believe that Boxing Pythagoras is referring to a Natural Cause. In other words as per his view he does not believe an external cause is necessary.

Not quite. I've been referring to an Aristotelian cause. I haven't discussed natural versus supernatural causation, in the slightest. I do not believe that the universe was caused to exist by an actor, whether naturally or unnaturally.

[seer]

It entirely depends upon what you mean by "cause." If you simply mean that the ball is preventing the cushion from expanding to its full volume, I absolutely agree that this is obvious. If you mean that the ball created a depression where no depression previously existed, then it most certainly is not the cause of the depression.

OK... That is close enough I guess.

Whether the universe is past-finite or past-infinite, there was never a state in which the universe did not exist. So, if your definition of "begins to exist" relies upon a thing not existing and then, subsequently, being brought into existence, then it is nonsensical to claim that the universe began.

Bu the universe, as far as we know, is finite. There was a hot big bang then inflation. How is that not a beginning? I mean aren't most physicists today looking for what caused this universe to begin?

If, however, you adopt a definition like that utilized by Dr. Craig, then even a thing which has literally always existed can "begin to exist."

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Bu the universe, as far as we know, is finite. There was a hot big bang then inflation. How is that not a beginning? I mean aren't most physicists today looking for what caused this universe to begin?

That's certainly not the question with which "most physicists today" are occupied. Within one particular field of physics, known as Cosmology, this is a question which is pursued. However, it is not at all certain that Big Bang cosmology does require a past-finite temporal boundary for the universe. There are models which are past-finite and there are models which are past-infinite. The question of whether or not the past is finite is still very much open, in cosmology.

That said, once again, even if the universe is past-finite, there was still never any state in which the universe did not exist.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

This is how Dr. Craig defines the phrase "begins to exist:"

For any entity e and time t, e begins to exist at t if and only if

1) e exists at t
2) t is the first time at which e exists
3) There is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
4) e‘s existing at t is a tensed fact

Noticeably lacking in this definition is a clause like "There exists some time prior to t in which e does not exist." This definition allows Dr. Craig to claim that even something which has literally existed for all time "began to exist." If you are interested, I have discussed the topic more fully at my blog: http://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/08/...ical-argument/

[seer]

That's certainly not the question with which "most physicists today" are occupied. Within one particular field of physics, known as Cosmology, this is a question which is pursued. However, it is not at all certain that Big Bang cosmology does require a past-finite temporal boundary for the universe. There are models which are past-finite and there are models which are past-infinite. The question of whether or not the past is finite is still very much open, in cosmology.

That said, once again, even if the universe is past-finite, there was still never any state in which the universe did not exist.

Then you come back to a universe without a cause. So the universe basically created itself? How could that happen.

This is how Dr. Craig defines the phrase "begins to exist:"

For any entity e and time t, e begins to exist at t if and only if

1) e exists at t
2) t is the first time at which e exists
3) There is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
4) e‘s existing at t is a tensed fact

Noticeably lacking in this definition is a clause like "There exists some time prior to t in which e does not exist." This definition allows Dr. Craig to claim that even something which has literally existed for all time "began to exist." If you are interested, I have discussed the topic more fully at my blog: http://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/08/...ical-argument/

OK, I think this is beyond me.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Then you come back to a universe without a cause. So the universe basically created itself? How could that happen.

The universe didn't create itself. The universe was not, and could not have been, created. For something to be created, there must first be some state in which that thing does not exist. This has never been the case for the universe.

OK, I think this is beyond me.

For the time being, you can ignore (3) and (4) from that definition-- they tend to be the more philosophically complicated part of Dr. Craig's formulation. Is there anything about (1) and (2) that confuses you? Or the phrase which I said was "noticeably lacking?" If so, I'll do my best to explain.

[seer]

The universe didn't create itself. The universe was not, and could not have been, created. For something to be created, there must first be some state in which that thing does not exist. This has never been the case for the universe.

OK, this really doesn't make sense to me. What caused the universe to expand. If there was a singularity, why didn't just remain a singularity? Why expansion and movement?

For the time being, you can ignore (3) and (4) from that definition-- they tend to be the more philosophically complicated part of Dr. Craig's formulation. Is there anything about (1) and (2) that confuses you? Or the phrase which I said was "noticeably lacking?" If so, I'll do my best to explain.

I think one and two is just saying that two things happen simultaneously - correct? Like with the heavy ball. If it not past eternal - the depression comes into existence at the same moment that the ball comes into contact with the cushion. So time would begin with the creation of the universe - ????