It seems to make sense to a lot of people, but not me. This layman is stubbornly clinging to his instincts that nothing can begin, or occur, uncaused.
Or you could look at it the other way, and conclude the agent is timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Remember, we’re starting with the answer - that the universe exists (in time) - and working backwards to work out the cause.
I’m not aware of any way to falsify a metaphysics of time, so some assumptions are required, at least, AFAIK.
Now, I would say that I prefer a block universe to presentism because it seems to make sense of relativity and the concept of simultaneous presents (which has been verified). So on that count, we have a reason to prefer block time.
But, by all means, present evidence supporting presentism. I’d be actually curious to see what you can come up with. Also, I’d appreciate an explanation of relativity and simultaneous presents.
How can an entity do anything if there is no time in which to do it? Time is a succession of events, is it not? If a God creates time, that means God creates a succession of events, but in order to do so, there would already be a succession of events - namely:
The time prior to the existence of time
The creation of time
It’s a contradiction.
Yep, but this still isn’t shaking my undying devotion to the idea that things can’t happen without a cause.
Since space is where things exist, and time is when things exist, where and when was God before he created space and time? if you say “outside space and/or time”, the only way that can make sense is if “outside space and/or time” means “some other space and/or time”, otherwise it is a nonsense phrase.
I’m a layman as well. Instincts can be wrong - take the example of seeing faces in the clouds. It seems that those really are faces, but we both know that this is not true, we know this through reason and through evidence (both of which you appealed to earlier). By the same token, you could know through reason and evidence that certain views of quantum physics make more sense than others.
As to convincing you - it’s not my intent or desire - I’m simply here for the conversation.
I’m curious as to how you can, on the one hand, deny that something uncaused can come from nothing and on the other hand believe that something can arrive caused via nothing.
We have no experience with either, so why would you - the layman - see one as making sense and the other not?
Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial are all terms we have no experience with and terms that I think are largely incoherent. You seem to have a problem with something coming from nothing uncaused, but no problem with the logical contradictions of a timeless, immaterial, spaceless entity creating something from nothing?
I don’t see how your view makes any sense.
Not a clue what you’re talking about.
But again, we know how the story ends - the universe exists. Would it be valid for me to refute the very existence of the universe by saying “But how could anything possibly exist at all?”. Of course not - we know the universe exists, we take that as a given. So, asking me to explain how the “causer” of the universe “works” is likewise invalid. I can describe its properties (timeless, spaceless, immaterial) I can infer general answers to your questions (perhaps the entity is in a timeless, unchanging state of causation?) but I think trying to get me to explain exactly how such a process works is not a valid refutation.
If something - anything - caused space, time and matter to exist, then said thing, by definition, is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
You have a devotion to it - that doesn’t mean it’s how reality operates. Keep your devotion, by all means.
If you’d like to explore it, please explain how an entity could act upon nothing to create something. Do you take two scoops of nothing, sprinkle on some magic, and ‘poof’, something?
I speak in jest, but really, what do you mean when you say that the universe was caused?
Sorry, I don’t think I was clear. When I say I don’t think you can have something come from nothing, I was talking about causation. Not ‘acted upon agents’.
Okay, well if you are going to try to have an informed opinion on these matters, then you should probably start with the metaphysics of time. Here’s a good run down on the concept of a block universe.
You are the one that is positing an incoherency in order to explain the universe - I am not. I’ve already given what I consider to be a good explanation of the universe, ie, a block universe. That explains the existence of the universe, no logically incoherent explanation required.
That said, it seems you are being arbitrary - right now you seem to be suggesting that a God explanation, even though it’s contradictory and incoherent, is somehow superior to your view of a contradictory physical explanation.
So if you consider both to be incoherent, why prefer one over the other?
Actually, its perfectly valid. Your position should be ‘i don’t know’, at least if you want to hold a rational position.
BTW - I’m not sure you could describe the properties of a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial entity, but I’d love to see you try.
Then please, explain what you are talking about.
Right now you seem to be relying on magic. Your explanation essentially boils down to ‘you can’t explain it, therefore magic’.
So be clear, explain what you mean by causation.
If the universe was created at the moment of the Big Bang, then we have two broad options to explain what happened. Either something caused it to come in to existence, or it came in to existence by itself (uncaused).
I think it’s reasonable, the “default option” to assume something caused it to happen. It’s defying every morsel of common sense and basic human instinct to think otherwise. Yeah, I could be wrong, I’m human. But I’m hard-wired to assume a cause. I’m willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint, such as an explanation on how we already know things can happen “uncaused”.. I just need someone capable of breaking the concept down for a layman like me?
If God was spaceless, timeless and immaterial before the creation of the universe, and he is now the entirety of the universe, then…God created himself??
If the quantum foam, an example of countless billions of somethings that happen without a cause, doesn’t shake your undying devotion that things can’t happen without a cause, this is really a lost conversation.
Except that, on one side of the argument you are requiring mounds of hard evidence, and on the other side you are accepting without evidence.
If something caused time, space and matter to come in to existence, then said thing must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial by definition. Hence, to say “I don’t know” would be lying.
You’ve just named three.
Wikipedia provides a good explanation:
Causation: “where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first”.
“IF”
You are already begging the question towards presentism. Please demonstrate presentism is the correct metaphysics of time. Until you do, why should I believe your explanation, when mine (block universe) works just as well AND it contains no incoherencies AND makes sense out of the relativistic notions of simultaneous presents?
I’ve already given a third option - you ignore it. These two options need to be coherent and not logically contradictory - if they are, then they are both off the table.
That’s fine if that’s what you think - but if you want anyone else to find that view reasonable, or even coherent, then you’ll need to explain it.
Right now it’s begging the question.
Actually your view is just as incoherent - you simply assume it’s not. You assume that the ‘magic’ answer is coherent, in the face of logical absurdity.
Right, I could be wrong as well, but I think the advantage my view has is that it’s not incoherent (at least it doesn’t seem to be to me, by all means, please show it is).
It doesn’t seem that you are willing to listen - or if you are willing to listen, you aren’t willing to take it seriously. You already seem to admit that you hold a view that makes no sense (otherwise you would resolve the problems I’ve brought up).
I’m a layperson as well, yet I don’t need to resort to incoherent magic to explain the existence of the universe. Further, if I didn’t have a coherent explanation, then I certainly would not prefer an incoherent one - I’d rather stick with ‘I don’t know’.
My question is, why don’t you stick with I don’t know?
How is that a refutation of that I said?
To repeat:
If something - anything - caused space, time and matter to come in to existence, then said thing must, by definition, be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
This time, please don’t defer to God in an attempt at refutation.
So you are admitting to begging the question that these three words are coherent?
That’s not much of a position to stand on.