Uncreated Creator Argument

My point wasn't that you should assume there is a departure, it was that you shouldn't assume there *isn't* a departure. To make the distinction more clear, here is an example:Suppose you are shown four boxes. Inside each of these boxes is a crow. Someone suggests to you that there *might* be a fifth box. What is inside the box?Now you might be tempted to conclude that there is probably a crow in the fifth box but that isn't warranted. If you had observed a box like the other four then you could reasonably expect a crow to be within the fifth box, but had you observed a barrel that assumption becomes much more shaky. Having observed nothing at all there is no logical reason to assume there is evidence pointing toward your usual experiences. Without any evidence at all, any conclusion is pure speculation.

Hi, Straggler. I am not saying that the extra step has to be taken! That’s only one of the two opposing models I discussed in an effort to get at the common underlying thread.I have been trying to get at the concept of just being, rather than the question of what, specifically, just is. I don’t care if it’s the universe or God or a eusocial herd of pink unicorns that just is: all I have tried to do is discuss the implications of allowing just is to be an acceptable explanation for an entity's existence.----- Neither evidence nor explanation can really be used in this situation:If causality doesn’t apply, what would you use to link any evidence you might be able to collect to the phenomenon you are trying to explain?Clearly, then, evidence is meaningless in a non-causal environment.If causality doesn’t apply, what exactly am I meant to be explaining?Clearly, then, natural explanations (explanations of any kind, for that matter) are also meaningless in a non-causal environment.If causality doesn’t apply, then exactly what assumptions and exactly how many steps are required to get from any point A to any point B? Zero and zero, right?Clearly, then, parsimony is also meaningless in a non-causal environment.The only conclusion I can come up with is that the scientific method reaches its singularity at the same point where causality reaches its singularity (wherever that happens to be).Thus, neither evidence nor parsimony is valid grounds for special pleading in the case of "it just is."Edited by Bluejay, : better sentence structureEdited by Bluejay, : Qualification of the invalidity of evidence and parsimony (rather important, I think).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Fair enough. I am not sure that this is true.We know that the universe exists. This is evidenced. I am not talking causality. I am talking "just being". We have evidence that the universe "just is" unless we deem that the universe must be caused.On what basis do we conclude that the universe must be caused? We have evidence that the universe exists. That is not meaningless. In fact I would say it is quite important. Explanations of cause are meaningless regarding anything that "just is". Whether natural or otherwise. On this we seem to agree. If something "just is" then I am not sure what point A and point B are in this context.......? Are they not the same thing? Not at all. Take that which you know exists (i.e. the universe) and assume that this "just is" with no prior causal steps in the chain. That would be the parsomonious conclusion based on the known evidence (i.e. the evidence that the universe exists). The scientific method of testing hypotheses by means of objective evidence may well reach it's limit at the "just is" or "uncaused cause". I need to think about this some more but my initial reaction is that on this you are logically correct. Well I disagree. We do have evidence. We have evidence that the universe exists. To assume that the evidenced existence of the universe is caused by something unevidenced is obviously both unparsimonious and unevidenced.Thus the conclusion that the universe "just is" seems to be the most parsimonious and objectively evidenced conclusion.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Straggler. I’m certainly not disputing that.I am disputing the claim that evidence for the universe’s existence is evidence for the universe’s uncaused existence. The non-causal nature of the universe’s existence is the part that can’t, even in principle, be evidenced.----- We have evidence that the universe is, but I don’t agree that this is evidence that the universe just is. It sounds like you’re just defaulting to it just is in the absence of evidence.----- I didn’t think I was concluding that the universe must be caused. Of course, since we’re talking about cosmology, I’m willing to admit that what I’m saying and what I think I’m saying are not necessarily the same thing. I was trying to explain that, because evidence is the effect part of cause-and-effect, a non-causal phenomenon will not leave evidence for us to investigate, and that observations from a non-causal environment don’t trace back to any explanatory theory.Edited by Bluejay, : Only one "the" is necessary.Edited by Bluejay, : b=i

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I think we agree on a lot more than is at first evident. I am not claiming that the uncaused nature of the universe is in itself evidenced. I am simply saying that it is the most parsimonious conclusion based on the totality of evidence that we do have. That is subtly different. If it is indeed the case that the universe "just is" then I think I agree. This cannot be evidenced in the way that you mean.That does not mean it cannot be the most parsimonious and evidenced answer available however. I think I am defaulting to that in exactly the way that you suggest. But is that default position a valid default position on the basis of the evidence available and parsimony? That is the question at hand.Something at some point down the chain has to be the "uncaused cause" or "just is". If not the universe then the cause of the universe. If not the cause of the universe then the cause of the cause of the universe etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.So something has to be "just is". We know that the universe exists. This is evidenced. We have absolutely no reason to think that there is any "uncaused cause" further down this potential chain of existence. Any claim that such a thing exists would be an unevidenced claim.Thus parsimony and the only evidence available suggest that the default (parsimonious and evidenced) conclusion must be that the universe "just is". Simply on the basis that there is no evidence on which to draw any other conclusion.I don't cliam it is a strong argument. It is just stronger than any claim of an "uncaused cause" argument that includes any being, entity or phenomenon that we have no evidenced reason to think exists further down the potential chain of cause and effect existence. And I think you are right. The problem is that whatever is the first "uncaused cause" or "just is" link in this potential chain of cause and effect will always have that "problem". The only thing we will in principle be able to establish about this first link in the chain is that it actually exists. It's origins will be logically uninvestigatable by scientific cause and effect means. If the nature of the universe is such that it is "uncaused" or "just is" then the notion of direct evidence of this in cause and effect terms would be both meaningless and pointless. So we seem to agree on this.But I also think that if something at some point must be the "uncaused cause" or "just is" element in a potential chain then taking the "something" that you know to exist on the basis of evidence (i.e. the universe in this case) to be that "just is" first element in the chain must be both the most "evidenced" and parsimonious answer.To suggest any causes further down the cause and effect chain of existence relies both on invoking the existence of the unevidenced and violating parsimony.Does that at least make sense? (even if you don't actually agree)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Straggler.I think I've got myself barking up the wrong tree (again). I think you and I do agree about a lot of things that the direction I've taken in the debate would suggest we do not agree. This is what happens when I try to tackle a debate I don't understand.Rahvin's comments upthread caused me to become interested in the mechanics (or lack thereof, as the case may be) of non-causality, and, I unfortunately turned it into a debate about the history of the universe.I am curious about what the non-causal origin of the universe implies for scientific study. It seems to me that, if the universe "just is," then we should be willing to accept that "it just is" is a viable theory for phenomena. I'm not advocating the usage of "it just is" for the presence of new phyla in the Cambrian or for various physical, evolutionary and ecological phenomena on Earth, but, upon wondering about non-causality, I came to an admittedly weird conclusion: I'd like to continue, but my mental capacity is already asymptotically approaching its singularity, and I'm afraid I have a final exam to take in a couple hours, so I'll have to cut off here and get back to studying.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

The correct conclusion is not that parallel Universes or Creators cannot "just be," The correct conclusion is that there is no reason to think they do exist without evidence supporting such assertions.Saying that the Universe "just is" is simply an application of parsimony - we know that the Universe exists. We don't know or even have evidence suggesting that a "Creator" or parallel Universe exists. So even though we can say that any of these can "just be," parsimony requires us to use the fewest necessary terms, and so unsupported assertions are discarded. "It just is" is a viable explanation for those things that we cannot yet explain with greater detail. Such an explanation in this case is not meant to imply that no further investigation is warranted; quite the opposite. It is, however, intended to point out that when we say "we don't have enough information to say more," that's exactly what we mean. Contemplating extra-Universal forces essentially requires discarding all of what we think we know about reality. That the Universe exists does not imply a Creator - it could simply exist. It could be impossible for the Universe to not exist. It could be possible for any other number of speculative assertions...but none of them are actually implied because we have insufficient information to discuss such implications.We don't know what "causes" Universes to exist, or if such a term even makes sense. Within the dimensions of the Universe, we know that they certainly don't. Asserting that the Universe requires a "cause" requires knowledge about the Universe that, quite frankly, we just don't have. It assumes, for one, that non-existence is a possibility. Is it? How do you know?Most of these debates come down to the question of whether existence or nonexistence is preferable, or the "default state." If the "default state" is nonexistence, it would seem that some event would be required to "cause" existence. This fits with human common snese - at our scale, a chair does not exist until a person makes the chair. But what if existence is the "default state?" What if it's impossible for the Universe to not exist, that the perturbations of the quantum field that collectively manifest as dimensions and matter and energy are inevitable? The answer is that we simply don't know - and that attempting to ascertain the facts accurately using human "common sense" and notions that necessarily only apply in a dimensional construct that includes a linear time-like dimension is foolhardy.

Nah. You are being too harsh on yourself. The question you raise is a valid one.And whilst I also think that the answer I gave is logically and evidentially the valid answer I wholly concede that it is not a particularly satisfying or conclusive answer. I don't think anyone is saying that the universe has to be that "just is" first link in the causal chain. But something in that causal chain does have to "just be".Assuming that which we know "actually is" to be that "just is" first link in the causal chain is the only evidenced answer that there can be in a position of such overwhelming ignorance. To assume anything else is to invoke the existence of the unevidenced.If we find evidence for a multiverse, colliding branes, creator or whatever then by the same logic that would become the default "just is" first link in the causal chain until we find evidence of a causal precursor to that. Probably inevitable. The two things go hand in hand. Good luck!!!What exam is it?

Hi, Rahvin. Granted.But, when all possible explanations are unsupportable (as would be the case in a non-causal extrauniverse), parsimony would also result in rejection of the true answer, wouldn't it?----- "Default states": that's something I've never thought about before. It sounds interesting.But, what is non-existence of not the stuff "outside" the universe, "before" the Big Bang, and "north" of the North Pole? Doesn't that stuff "not exist," regardless of whether or not the universe "does exist?"On that logic, I would have to conclude that "non-existence" is the "default state," but I admit that the reliability of this logic is highly questionable.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That's why science is tentative. We can't tentatively conclude that extraneous entities definitely do not exist - that would require proving a negative. We simply acknowledge that there is no reason to think that one of those unsupported possibilities is true, because to pick one of several unsupported possibilities is arbitrary and requires special pleading.We do, however, have one basic piece of evidence: the Universe exists. We don't know that is "just is," we simply know that there is no rational reason to conclude that causality necessarily applies to the Universe itself in the same way that it applies to objects in the Universe, since the dimension of time that gives causality meaning is a property of the Universe.There may not even be an "outside" to the Universe at all.So, given that we don't have enough information to support any extraneous entity "outside" of the Universe, the explanation with the fewest terms is simply that the Universe "is." This explanation should be tentatively preferred pending additional information. It's not that stuff "outside" of the unvierse doesn't exist - it's that those particular questions don't make sense.In the set of numbers:{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...}which number comes before 0?That doesn't mean that this number set is all that exists - it simply means that the question is invalid, just like asking what is "North" of the North Pole.It also means that, given that the numbers in this set are all we are aware of or have evidence for, it is irrational to conclude that there is a "cause" (or preceding number) for 0, despite that all of the remaining numbers have a number preceding them.With the Universe and T=0, we also have to deal with the curvature of spacetime, and that further complicates matters to a degree that I'll defer to cavediver and Son Goku for any sort of explanation. When the warping of space and time approaches the infinite...well, that's part of the reason we have a singularity at T=0. Why would you conclude that?I don't see any information that allows us to conclude that there is more to existence than our Universe. If the "default state" is existence, that doesn't necessarily mean that other things must exist as well - our Universe may encompass all of existence.Or it may not. We don't know...but we do know that our Universe exists, and that additional entities without supporting evidence violate parsimony.

That really, in essence, just about sums up the issue that you, I and Bluejay have been jointly discussing.I am not sure that there is much more that can be said on this topic.But hey this is EvC so we could have another 300 posts ahead of us while we explore these things further.......

Lets try to look at it from a perspective that is not centered around humanity. All those things that "do not exist" are purely conceptual; that is to say, they are only brought about by the workings of a human mind. From that perspective those things that do not exist are purely artificial and those things that do exist are natural to varying extents. For example: A car, while designed and built by humans, is created from naturally occurring elements. An invisible pink unicorn (or any other mental construct that does not exist) is purely artificial.From this I would suggest the conclusion that existence is the natural state of things. That statement is somewhat self-evident and circular, but that is perhaps unavoidable.

Hi, Rahvin. If nothing is, nor ever can be, north of the North Pole, I would say "north of the North Pole" does not exist.What else could "does not exist" possibly mean?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phage. As far as I am aware, the only alternative to non-existence is existence.So, what was the status of unicorns before a human mind imagined them up?If they did not exist before humans imagined them up, I think it's safe to say that your idea is pure nonsense.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler.I couldn't think up much of a response to most of your post, but I can answer this one: It was statistics.I think I rocked it from here to Mars.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.