God and Causality...

[-X-]

in just about every argument i've come across, i have seen a regression of sorts back to an "original cause", subjecting everything after this "first cause" (or primal cause) to the laws of causality...

if god, as an omnipotent creator of all does indeed "exist" (for lack of a better word), then is said god subject to the laws of causality?

some agnostics define a higher power as an "uncaused cause", meaning that "god" in that reference was the "cause of all" but not caused by anything

wouldn't said god have to have created causality? wouldn't said god exist outside of it? isn't causality dependant on the laws of time first and foremost?

for a cause to "cause" an effect, doesn't time have to pass?

are we subjecting an omnipotent entity to both the laws of time and causality by questioning the nature of the existence of god and using these laws in an attempt to define something that is supposed to "exist" outside of them?

why must god be "uncaused" or "caused" or have "caused" the universe/multiverse/whatever to "exist?"

i admit, to attempt to define or describe something that exists outside time and causality is quite a daunting task, and i am in no way saying i can... but i'm wondering if we as a community can...

i am just beginning to ponder this line of thought, and i look forward to your replies so that i may establish a better base to ponder...

[graymouser]

Look in my thread "God and Time." It is literally impossible for the ultimate time-reference (not necessarily our spacetime, though Occam's Razor suggests it) to be caused - because a force causing time to begin entails the following sequence of events:

1. No time
2. Time exists

that contains two explicit states, with sequential change, and therefore time. "Timelessness" is literally a self-contradictory concept, because when we begin to discuss actions or changes in state we automatically assume time. Either the ultimate frame of time-reference existed uncaused from eternity, or it came into existence a finite time ago (which would mean God also came into existence) without causation.

I think that, even with an omnipotent God, causality is another thing God couldn't have created - because saying "God is omnipotent" entails capability to cause anything God wants to cause; i.e., if there were no causality, omnipotence would not do God any good because God's actions wouldn't necessarily lead to any effects. So time and causality can be said to exist independent of any God.

-Wayne

[-X-]

so time and causality are both uncaused?

or is it our limited language that confounds the idea of something being "timeless" or "existing" outside of time and/or causality? because we can describe it no other way except under the laws of time and causality?

[graymouser]

Causality is by necessity uncaused - literally, it's impossible for something to have caused causality. It's also impossible for something to have atemporal existence and act, because action can only occur in sequence, which implies time.

Taking the second fork of your dilemma commits us to an absolute agnosticism - that is to say, a realm of which any knowledge or understanding would be in and of itself contradictory. You can claim it, but I can rightly say you're contradicting yourself if you claim both such a position and you claim to know anything at all about God. If it's beyond our knowledge, then we know nothing whatsoever. The theist claims that it's beyond our knowledge but we know something - which is pure nonsense.

-Wayne

[-X-]

Causality is by necessity uncaused - literally, it's impossible for something to have caused causality. It's also impossible for something to have atemporal existence and act, because action can only occur in sequence, which implies time.

i agree completely with the second portion, in regards to time... very nicely put...

however i disagree with the first...

i would say that causality is indeed caused by something, it may be impossible in your scope and perception, but not in mine.

i would say time caused and continues to cause causality.


Taking the second fork of your dilemma commits us to an absolute agnosticism - that is to say, a realm of which any knowledge or understanding would be in and of itself contradictory. You can claim it, but I can rightly say you're contradicting yourself if you claim both such a position and you claim to know anything at all about God. If it's beyond our knowledge, then we know nothing whatsoever. The theist claims that it's beyond our knowledge but we know something - which is pure nonsense.


well then, so would any theory in science then, be pure nonsense... unless we assume that at some point in time we can know all there is to know...

we cannot, but are you going to tell me that humans have the potential to be omniscient? you are if you are saying that science is different, because there are things in science that are beyond our knowledge (such as a "big bang" theory), yet we claim to have some sort of knowledge/understanding of them... in the end resulting in "there is a very high probability that suggests" whatever it suggests...

[Jamie_L]

Along my path from belief to unbelief, I came across an interesting truth about my perspective on things:

From where I stand, introducing God into the equation doesn't seem to answer any of my nagging confusion about existence.

Existence makes no sense to my finite brain. I'm trapped in this stuff called time and causality. It makes no sense for the universe to be infinite. It also makes no sense for it to be finite. If we add "God" into the mix, the same issues appear to exist, only now they've been handed off from the universe to God.

Saying these things do not apply to God, and then washing our hands of them seems to be just smoke and mirrors. It is no more satisfactory to say God is above these things than to say the universe is above these things. God adds complication with a gain of zero explanatory power.

When people explain why they feel God does solve these problems, I understand their words, but it feels like the arguments amount to little more than special pleading. "But you see, God is different." "Why?" "Because he's God." Ah. Excellent logic. Now it's all clear. :rolleyes: Of course, they have more eloquent ways of saying that, but it really does just boil down to "Because he's God."

So, I'm left to just accept that existence makes no sense. Since God doesn't help with that, I see no need to involve him needlessly.

Jamie

[-X-]

interesting line of thinking...

so then what?

it seems we're stuck at this:

god created everything

or

nothing created everything

how's this:

god=nothing

lol, i think that's what it basically boils down to, no?

[graymouser]

i agree completely with the second portion, in regards to time... very nicely put...

however i disagree with the first...

i would say that causality is indeed caused by something, it may be impossible in your scope and perception, but not in mine.

i would say time caused and continues to cause causality.Causality cannot have been caused. You cannot say "X caused the law of cause and effect to begin to operate" because you are relying on the law of cause and effect within the statement.

Causing causality is a statement without meaning; if causality began to exist, then it must have been acausally, because saying that X caused Y before causality is an empty statement.

well then, so would any theory in science then, be pure nonsense... unless we assume that at some point in time we can know all there is to know...

we cannot, but are you going to tell me that humans have the potential to be omniscient? you are if you are saying that science is different, because there are things in science that are beyond our knowledge (such as a "big bang" theory), yet we claim to have some sort of knowledge/understanding of them... in the end resulting in "there is a very high probability that suggests" whatever it suggests...If you assume God is entirely outside of our ability to describe him, any attempt you give to describe God is innately contradictory, and I will consider it null and void as long as you have the first assumption. That's all I mean.

-Wayne

[Jamie_L]

so then what?
Well, mostly I just accept that I can't answer this thorny little issue, and I go on about my life. I've more or less just accepted that existence has a property of "makes no sense to humans". There's not necessarily any reason to expect that it has to make any sense.

One option I think you left out is this: there was no creation.

In the back of my mind, this is the one "doesn't make sense" option that seems the most likely. Things have always "just been" in one sense or another (infinitely-looping big bangs, an infinitely pre-existing quantum singularity, or whatever). Theists tend to accept this answer to, only they say "God has always just been."

*shrug*

Jamie

[Darth Dane]

how's this:

god=nothing

Ayn Sof is a hebrew way of describing God, it means infinite nothing ;)

[-X-]

Causality cannot have been caused. You cannot say "X caused the law of cause and effect to begin to operate" because you are relying on the law of cause and effect within the statement.


causality cannot exist without time, therefore, it is my opinion that time causes the law of cause and effect to operate, and what exactly, is the "beginning" of the law of cause and effect? a first cause, no? time, then is the first cause of the law of causality, and because causality cannot exist outside of time, then that tells me "time causes causality" the same way time causes age... it is an entropic decaying of the human body until it ceases to function, not caused specifically "caused" in a literal sense by time, but the result of time's existence... as things break down over the passage of time... if there was no time, then there'd be no age, therefore no breakdown over the passage of nothing, correct? that says to me that time causes age...

Causing causality is a statement without meaning; if causality began to exist, then it must have been acausally, because saying that X caused Y before causality is an empty statement.

ok, just as existence is caused by time, so is causality, and anything else having to do with time... without time these things do not "exist", therefore they are "caused" by time...


If you assume God is entirely outside of our ability to describe him, any attempt you give to describe God is innately contradictory, and I will consider it null and void as long as you have the first assumption. That's all I mean.


ah, i don't know if god is entirely outside of our ability to describe god, but some of the words we use to do so are outside of our ability to fully understand them.

"if you cannot fully explain to me what happens inside a black hole and how it comes about, then i don't believe in black holes.

if you cannot tell me how big space is then i refuse to believe that it exists..."

i don't necessarily believe in this line of thinking, but couldn't something be said for it in light of your argument?