Replies

A-G wrote: All physical cosmologies ... require an uncaused cause for physical causation itself ...

To which si tacuissem replied: Almost lyric, but a kind of personal opinion...

If this is a personal opinion, si tacuissem, then please note it's Aristotle's.

I have a friend who's an astrophysicist and loves cosmological speculation. He believes that the universe took its beginning from a random fluctuation in a false vacuum: On his view, that is the prima causa of all that there is. But there is no explanation of where the false vacuum came from; i.e., its cause is not accounted for. So in effect he really is ignoring the problem the first cause. But without a first cause, space and time would not exist, as A-G has pointed out; and so there could not even be a false vacuum in which a random fluctuation could occur: space and time are prerequisite.

You wrote: "...purist atheists are a creative bunch and can make up a god-less model for a non-steady-state universe..."

Well, sure they can. Hawking -- evidently shrinking from the obvious implications of a big bang/inflationary universe that he and Penrose and Ellis had mathematically modeled -- developed a cosmology of an eternal(uncaused) universe by stipulating imaginary time. One can have great fun with such pursuits; but at the end of the day the question arises: But is it true? The scientific consensus increasingly credits the big bang/inflationary universe model on grounds of observation and evidence; i.e., the COBE satellite data on the cosmic microwave background radiation for which John C. Mather and George C. Smoot were awarded the 2006 Nobel prize in physics. The Nobel committee cited their work especially for lending further confirmation of the big bang model, and for refining the age of the universe. The universe has an age because it had a beginning: Thus the universe is not eternal. For the reasons A-G cites, it must have had a first cause that is not itself "caused."

Aristotle also pointed out that an infinitely regressive causal series cannot account for logic or the lawful behavior that we observe in the natural world. You can't get from an string of "accidental" causes in an infinite past to logic and reason. No matter how many "accidents" you have, there is no principle whereby logic and lawful behavior can be the result.

AG wrote: Teleology, purpose for which "all that there is" exists - final cause in Aristotelean parlance, the last of four.

To which you replied: Ah, the "What is it good for" question... You are right, a purist atheist may just admire the beauty of it all.

Well, FWIW, it seems to me that if the purist atheist can admire the beauty of the world without wondering why something that ought to be random, accidental, chaotic, etc., etc., according to his own presuppositions, then he's not particularly inquisitive, not looking deeply enough into the issue of why there is beauty in the world, or how it got there. But if he's determined to resist the idea of God, he really can't "go there."

Lastly, the machine analogy for living beings works superficially, but quickly falls apart on closer inspection. Two points here: (1) machines are fully subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but living systems (to be living) are able to work against it (at least during their lifetimes); and (2) living systems are able to alter their paths away from the paths predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the laws of physics. That is, they are not completely causally determined; but the same cannot be said of a machine. All it can do is execute its program.

My two cents' worth FWIW. Thanks for this interesting exchange with Alamo-Girl!

[ The universe has an age because it had a beginning: Thus the universe is not eternal. For the reasons A-G cites, it must have had a first cause that is not itself "caused." ]

MUST be so to creature in a TIME box.. (that is a non eternal creature..)

But to an eternal "creature" something uncreated therefore "always was" is possible.. How long is always?.. Beginnings and endings is/are unique to this paradigm being time centered.. Its hard to get your mind around eternity.. Cause not only are there things that always will be there must be things that always were.. else what is eternity?..

Meaning; A Universe that always was should be possible.. and the Big Bang is a childish look at eternity..

He believes that the universe took its beginning from a random fluctuation in a false vacuum: On his view, that is the prima causa of all that there is. But there is no explanation of where the false vacuum came from; i.e., its cause is not accounted for. So in effect he really is ignoring the problem the first cause. But without a first cause, space and time would not exist, as A-G has pointed out; and so there could not even be a false vacuum in which a random fluctuation could occur: space and time are prerequisite.

This reminds me of the argument that is presented against ID/creation. If IDers/creationists can't tell where the Intelligent designer/God came from, then they have nothing valid to say. Yet a naturalist cannot even tell where the universe came from, so ends up being in a similar postiion, yet expects to have others accept what he says as valid and needing no other support but the evidence of the world itself that we see.

If the same standard were applied to both sides of the issue, then there would be the situation where niether point of veiw is valid, or the naturalist would be forced to concede that the IDers/creationists have something after all.

The Quinquae viae are timeless.
Thanks for the supurb 21st century read of timeless ideas.

The premise of first cause arguments are well supported by observations and mathematical deduction made in 21st century:

The Nobel committee cited their work especially for lending further confirmation of the big bang model, and for refining the age of the universe. The universe has an age because it had a beginning: Thus the universe is not eternal.

Timeless thoughts from Thomas Aquinas:

There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first Cause called God

or

Every effect has a cause(s).
Nothing can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, there must be a first Cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

It is interesting that there is another variant of the first cause argument often refered to as the Kalâm cosmological argument.

There are several people who have written extensively advocating the Kalâm cosmological argument in the last 50 years one of them being William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig's concise statement of the argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its 
   existence. 
2. The universe began to exist. 

   2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an 
       actual infinite.

         2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 
         2.12 An infinite temporal regress of 
              events is an actual infinite.
         2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal 
              regress of events cannot exist. 

   2.2   Argument based on the impossibility of 
         the formation of an actual infinite by 
         successive addition. 

         2.21 A collection formed by successive 
              addition cannot be actually infinite. 
         2.22 The temporal series of past events 
              is a collection formed by successive 
              addition. 
         2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of 
              past events cannot be actually 
              infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its 
   existence.