What’s so impossible about it? Moved Mover 1 is moved by Moved Mover 2, who is moved by Moved Mover 3, who is moved by Moved Mover 4… Where’s the contradiction in that?
(Not that there’s anything all that surprising about an unmoved mover, for that matter, or that there need be only one from which all other movement flows, or, really, just about anything… It’s all sophistry and illusion.)
This thread is so boring. 101 posts in, and NO ONE has answered the OP’s question:
“Doesn’t any of this say “intelligent designer”?”
I’m inclined to say “no”, but I first want to hear what Dopers have to say on the subject.
What started that causal chain? A causal chain, by its nature, requires something that put it in motion–what started this one?
Or consider it this way: If the present is preceded by an infinite series of actions, how did we ever get to the present? The present can never be reached until all the prior causes are exhausted, which would be infinite. How does one ever reach the present? Such is the nature of infinity. (BTW, we’re conveniently ignoring the fact that our universe in fact has a beginning, a barrier, so to speak, against an infinite regression of anything.)
I don’t understand your question. It works by an infinite series of moved movers. Nothing prevents that, Why do you think it does?
No, it really isn’t. You are mistaken about that, and I’m not sure I understand why. What, in your mind, prevents an infinite causal chain? This is not something prohibited by physics, by logic or by math.
You also contradict yourself if you say that everything needs a cause but the thing that doesn’t need a cause. That’s just asserting magic.
Nothing has to start it. This is where you are mistaken. There is no requirement for a causal chain to have a beginning. Could you please explain what you think would prevent it?
How did we get to the present with a creator who has existed infinitely into the past?
I lend my imprimatur to everything Diogenes says, and will let him and others take it from here, since I find myself losing interest in the argument. I did partake in a long mess of a thread on related issues a while back, which I link to now in case anyone is interested in it.
No.
Virtual particles come to mind; they constantly appear and vanish, no cause required. Not only are effects without causes possible; the universe literally seethes with them.
While I agree with you on the general point, it’s my understanding that time itself only came into being with the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago. I think this would mean that physics does rule out infinite causal chains, at least as the universe is currently understood. To be clear, I agree that one can’t eliminate the possibility offhand, and that an infinite causal chain is logically and mathematically possible. But physics seems to be pointing to a universe with an unmoved mover setting things in motion a finite amount of time ago.
Not necessarily. Various theories speculate that this universe is part of a larger one, or spawned from another; our time may have started with the Big Bang, but not necessarily all time.
The unmoved mover logically must exist outside of the constraints of time and space.
The present–in our universe composed of moved movers, subject to the constraints of time and space–is the end point for that happened prior to it. How much time needed to have pass to get to the present if there is an infinite regression of events prior to it? The present, this end point, would never be reached until the prior events were completed–and they never would be. One cannot traverse the infinite. That’s the nature of infinity and that’s why an infinite regression is illogical and why a causal chain requires a beginning.
So, if (1) our universe is composed of moved movers, subject to the constraints of time and space, and (2) an infinite regression of moved movers is illogical, then (3) there must be an unmoved mover that exists outside the constraints of time and space.
Also, as waterj2 points out, in our universe there’s the sticking point of the fact that it DID have a beginning, a circumstance that eliminates the possibility for an infinite regression.
That assumes that the universe didn’t come into being all at once, as a whole four (or more) dimensional object.
No, because all we know is that the universe had A beginning; not that it was THE beginning. As said, it is quite possible that this universe is only a speck in a much larger one, or that it has “budded off” from another.
Also, when told about such phenomena, often people assume that there must be a hidden mechanism determining where virtual particles will appear.
But, if I understand right, such a hypothesis does not come “free”: it makes testable predictions. Scientists have shown that either there is no hidden mechanism, or that the hidden mechanism must involve FTL transmission of information.
From the POV of defending “common sense” causality, FTL is more problematic than spontaneous events.
Sure, but your argument was in the abstract about how an infinite chain of moved movers is impossible or a “non sequitor”. If we are going to be more specific w.r.t. our universe then it’s necessary to point out that the notion of “moved movers” and the rest, goes back to Aristotle and has little in common with modern physics (e.g. virtual particles are “unmoved movers”).
But sure, as I’ve already said, in my view there is an explanatory gap w.r.t. how anything can exist at all. But that’s a problem that is not solved by postulating a god, indeed god solves nothing here and simply taunts occam’s razor.
What if God were bigger than the universe but the totality of all that exists?
“Ocean: A body of water occupying two-thirds of a world made for man —who has no gills.”
— Ambrose Bierce
The fact that the universe is composed of things that each require a prior cause does not prove that the universe itself requires a prior cause. A collection does not necessarily have the properties of its individual members (e.g. individual states have capitals; the collective “the New England states” does not).
You have yet to establish that an “unmoved mover” needs to exist at all. In point of fact, anything that “caused” the Big Bang existed “outside” of time and space, but did not itself need to be uncaused.
There isn’t any “time before” the universe, so that question is meaningless. The present, this end point, would never be reached until the prior events were completed–and they never would be.
[/quote]
How long did God exist before he made the universe? hasn’t God been here infinitely long? How did he ever arrive at the point where he made the universe?
(2) is incorrect. Infinite causality is not impossible. You are flat wrong about that.
No, actually, it doesn’t. You don’t seem familar with string theory or multiverse theory.
What?
No matter how you slice it, a god causes more problems than it solves. The question of how the universe started hasn’t been solved. Theorists are working on that, and they only have to explain that question. If you believe some kind of god brought the universe into existence, you have to explain where the god came from. Declaring ‘god is the uncaused cause’ does not resolve the issues here; it’s the equivalent of ‘because I said so.’ If anything the question of where this god thing came from is a bigger problem than where the universe came from: we know many of the properties of the universe, and we know what’s in it. We have no idea what the god’s properties are. We also don’t know how something that is not part of the physical universe manages to influence the universe physically. And if I read your question correctly, now you have to figure out how something can be bigger than the universe. The universe is everything that exists.
An excellent explanation! And as I’m certain Marley23 knows, this is the essence of Occam’s Razor.
So often this principal is expressed as “The simplest solution is the usually the most likely (or even “the best”)”, but a much better reading is “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”, and only applies as long as the explanation without the extra entities still sufficiently covers the situation.
So a simple explanation is 'God did it". But we now have a (by definition, essentially unexplainable) new entity to explain.
A scientific explanation may have more steps, but can be broken down into entities we know, or at least have a possibility of conceiving and then explaining.