3 ms·
> Why couldn't life itself be the causeless cause? Because everything we know about this universe needs a cause, nothing in this universe is causeless, so you
by ibra77 7y ago
> Why couldn't life itself be the causeless cause?
Because everything we know about this universe needs a cause, nothing in this universe is causeless, so you can't simply say that "something" inside that universe is causeless.
And everything we know about life screams causality, from the need to eat and drink to generate energy, to sex for reproduction.
If life can actually be causeless why is it so fragile and dependent on so many things to keep itself from death?
> A cell is much simpler than anything capable of inventing the universe.
A cell is also not capable of creating itself out of nothing.
Your lack of knowledge/understanding about how can something create the universe is not a justification for assuming that it created itself.
You need a causeless cause (otherwise we wouldn't exist), so you either choose it to be the universe itself (which is a wild guess with zero evidence and hence not even scientific as you claim), or it is God (and yes you can't
and will never understand how it is the first cause)
I'd rather believe in God and his messages to us that brought actual evidence, than believe in an unconscious universe creating itself with no evidence.
- dTal 7y agoTo be clear, I think that both cells and gods are far too complex to be satisfyingly acausal. I'm not willing to entertain more than a few bits (in the information-theory sense) of acausality. Of course, belief in God is an emotionally charged topic. Many people rely on their belief for many things, and trying to argue against it is seldom productive - I'm hesitant to engage for that reason. You're free to believe what you'd like. But, since you've brought up "evidence" I don't agree that there is more evidence for God creating the universe than there is for some kind of spontaneous event. For a start, the existence of the universe is extremely verifiable, much more so than God - no matter how much you believe in the "messages". For another, the universe appears to governed by very simple rules of physics (although not quite simple enough for my "several bits" threshold of acausality, just yet). Attempting to explain a fairly simple phenomenon that definitely exists with a very complex phenomenon of uncertain existence doesn't seem to add any explanatory power, and in fact just multiplies entities unnecessarily. All you've done there is take the mystery, put it in a box labeled "God" (along with a bunch of other things), and then said we're not supposed to look inside the box. Addendum - I don't think the universe needs a "cause", per se - causality is related to the arrow of time, and that is a property internal to the universe. That's not to say that nothing needs explaining, but I think we should focus on "simplicity" rather than "causality".
- doliveira 7y agoHow does shortening "The Thing That Made The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And Causes And Directs Events We Can't Otherwise Explain" to "God" actually brings any knowledge whatsoever? You didn't discover anything new. It's much more honest to say "we don't know yet".