4 ms·

> But if our universe is contingent, then it must be contingent upon something that is necessary You say that as if it was a obvious why, but to me that looks

by otikik 4y ago

> But if our universe is contingent, then it must be contingent upon something that is necessary You say that as if it was a obvious why, but to me that looks like a baseless assumption. The way I see it, if our universe is contingent, then that’s all we can know, the journey ends, there’s nothing else we can deduce. I simply can’t “assume” that there’s a “necessary substrate” just … because.

eldenwrong 4y ago
Everything we can observe in this universe has a cause and effect. The first cause is God.
- tmountain 4y ago
  Theology fits comfortably with our intuitive perception of time, but that doesn’t make it the definitive answer.
  - logicchop 4y ago
    It doesn't really have anything to do with time. The "sustainment" question is different from the "causal" question. Causal questions are typically temporal and past-looking. Sustainment is a question about "now", always.
- 8bitsrule 4y ago
  If the physical universe always existed, then it needed no creator. If it was created, then the question moves back a step: where'd the creator come from? And we wind up with the same mystery.
- otikik 4y ago
  This has been discussed many times before. The problem is that "the first cause is God" is not based on anything. It is perfectly fine to ask "If everything has a cause, then what caused God?". Then there's two options. One is that it's "turtles all the way down" - God1 caused God. And God2 caused God1. And that goes on, forever. The other option is "God caused himself". Which is similar to being "the first cause", but here's the difference: at that point, we have admitted an exception to the "everything has a cause" rule, which is that "some things can cause themselves". At which point one might as well make that decision earlier and conclude "The Universe Created Itself", not needing God at all.
  - yusefnapora 4y ago
    The “god as first cause” argument feels like a stack overflow. It’s just what happens when you infinitely recurse a cause and effect chain. If you don’t want to spend rest of your life evaluating it, you eventually just give up and `throw new Exception(“a wizard did it”)`
logicchop 4y ago
You probably have to assume there is a necessary substrate. What else can you possibly think? Contingency means being contingent on something else. You could suppose that the "something else" is itself contingent, but then you have another contingency. At some point you will likely take it for granted that there must be something that is itself not contingent and that the rest of the stuff downstream turns on it being the way it is.
- a_techwriter_00 4y ago
  Can the universe be infinite? Whatever layer of contingent substrate one finds, can't there be another one lurking behind it, just as contingent?
  - logicchop 4y ago
    I don't see what the infinite sequence of contingency buys you. Seems you might as well say there is fundamentally no reason why anything is (though I think that's untenable).
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      "What it buys you" suggests that we should assume reality is fundamentally organized for our convenience or comfort, or to avoid being too challenging to our intellectual powers and/or beliefs. By introducing the concept of reasons into the discussion, you seem to be adding a new dimension of purpose to it (unless you are using 'reason' as a synonym for 'cause', but if so, it would have been clearer to stick with the latter.) Your belief that the universe has a purpose (if that is what you are saying here) does not logically compel anyone else to accept a first cause. Update: In your view, there is a hierarchy of causes of something, the first of which is necessary and the rest of which are contingent. Therefore, the second cause was contingent. This implies that the first cause made a choice between which of the second-cause options obtained. But as the first cause had a choice, then it could have gone another way, so it was contingent...
  - abudabi123 4y ago

by otikik 4y ago

eldenwrong 4y ago

Everything we can observe in this universe has a cause and effect. The first cause is God.

tmountain 4y ago
Theology fits comfortably with our intuitive perception of time, but that doesn’t make it the definitive answer.
- logicchop 4y ago
  It doesn't really have anything to do with time. The "sustainment" question is different from the "causal" question. Causal questions are typically temporal and past-looking. Sustainment is a question about "now", always.
8bitsrule 4y ago
If the physical universe always existed, then it needed no creator. If it was created, then the question moves back a step: where'd the creator come from? And we wind up with the same mystery.
otikik 4y ago
This has been discussed many times before. The problem is that "the first cause is God" is not based on anything. It is perfectly fine to ask "If everything has a cause, then what caused God?". Then there's two options. One is that it's "turtles all the way down" - God1 caused God. And God2 caused God1. And that goes on, forever. The other option is "God caused himself". Which is similar to being "the first cause", but here's the difference: at that point, we have admitted an exception to the "everything has a cause" rule, which is that "some things can cause themselves". At which point one might as well make that decision earlier and conclude "The Universe Created Itself", not needing God at all.
- yusefnapora 4y ago
  The “god as first cause” argument feels like a stack overflow. It’s just what happens when you infinitely recurse a cause and effect chain. If you don’t want to spend rest of your life evaluating it, you eventually just give up and `throw new Exception(“a wizard did it”)`

logicchop 4y ago

You probably have to assume there is a necessary substrate. What else can you possibly think? Contingency means being contingent on something else. You could suppose that the "something else" is itself contingent, but then you have another contingency. At some point you will likely take it for granted that there must be something that is itself not contingent and that the rest of the stuff downstream turns on it being the way it is.

a_techwriter_00 4y ago
Can the universe be infinite? Whatever layer of contingent substrate one finds, can't there be another one lurking behind it, just as contingent?
- logicchop 4y ago
  I don't see what the infinite sequence of contingency buys you. Seems you might as well say there is fundamentally no reason why anything is (though I think that's untenable).
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    "What it buys you" suggests that we should assume reality is fundamentally organized for our convenience or comfort, or to avoid being too challenging to our intellectual powers and/or beliefs. By introducing the concept of reasons into the discussion, you seem to be adding a new dimension of purpose to it (unless you are using 'reason' as a synonym for 'cause', but if so, it would have been clearer to stick with the latter.) Your belief that the universe has a purpose (if that is what you are saying here) does not logically compel anyone else to accept a first cause. Update: In your view, there is a hierarchy of causes of something, the first of which is necessary and the rest of which are contingent. Therefore, the second cause was contingent. This implies that the first cause made a choice between which of the second-cause options obtained. But as the first cause had a choice, then it could have gone another way, so it was contingent...
- abudabi123 4y ago