Jump to content
theInquirer

Concerning the Nature of the Universe

Recommended Posts

On 1/30/2019 at 7:00 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 

1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 

2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

3. The universe exists.  

4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason).  

5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.    

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 6:46 AM, Who me said:

Yes, but done on a calculator gets the answer I supplied.

In mathmatical, philsophical and every practical way nothing does not cause something to happen.

There has to be a cause.

Atheists would love your analysis, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 8:00 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 

1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 

2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

3. The universe exists.  

4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason).  

5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.    

I enjoyed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas some 50 years ago when I was in college.  The problem with this set of arguments is fundamental; the fact is nothing ceases to exist.  Things merely change or transition to another form; sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.  And sometimes we don't have the technology that can measure the change.  Does the human soul really weigh 21 ounces?

The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 2:11 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Atheists would love your analysis, imho.

Then you have never talked to an atheist.

Start demonstrating that because the universe is scientifically demonstrable that it has a beginning and throw in the logical reasoning that everything that has a beginning has a cause and you have an atheist who can see where one is going and is doing all they can to avoid the conclusion that something unknown caused the universe to begin.

Is this a line of argument you can make to an atheist

Can you argue that fine tuning implies a creator?

That morality implies a creator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Then you have never talked to an atheist.

Yes.

On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Start demonstrating that because the universe is scientifically demonstrable that it has a beginning and throw in the logical reasoning that everything that has a beginning has a cause and you have an atheist who can see where one is going and is doing all they can to avoid the conclusion that something unknown caused the universe to begin.

The science supports a finite universe.

On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Is this a line of argument you can make to an atheist

Can you argue that fine tuning implies a creator?

That morality implies a creator?

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 1:46 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Yes.

The science supports a finite universe.

?

Talk to your work colleges, take a book in on creationism and leave it out, or be seen reading it at lunch. It will generate conversations.

 

Demonstrate that scientifically that the universe had a beginning and ask 'What caused it to exist?' and you'll quickly learn how illogical non christian thought and argument is.

Fine tuning. atoms/molecules are held together by a force that is very precise. if it was only a little bit stronger those atoms/molecules would not be able to part to enable chemical reactions to take pace and if a little weaker would not be able to hold together.

Gods character is that he is 'good' therefore creation reflects Gods character, why else does every person believe in right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Who me said:

Talk to your work colleges, take a book in on creationism and leave it out, or be seen reading it at lunch. It will generate conversations.

I have no work colleagues.  I was fired age discrimination.  I am 69 years old.

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Demonstrate that scientifically that the universe had a beginning and ask 'What caused it to exist?' and you'll quickly learn how illogical non christian thought and argument is.

Philosophically, you get back to the argument of Thomas Aquinas that there must be a Prime Mover.  Evolutionist deny this when they espouse a finite universe.  Scientifically, we now no with reasonable certainty that the universe had a beginning but is still expanding at an accelerating rate.

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Fine tuning. atoms/molecules are held together by a force that is very precise. if it was only a little bit stronger those atoms/molecules would not be able to part to enable chemical reactions to take pace and if a little weaker would not be able to hold together.

Gods character is that he is 'good' therefore creation reflects Gods character, why else does every person believe in right and wrong.

The Supremacy of Christ (Colossians 1:16-17)

16  For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.  17  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×