Uncreated Creator Argument

Hi, DD2014. Welcome to EvC!As AiG explained, God being uncreated violates the assumed "rule" that everything must have been created.Once you provide an exception to a rule, you can no longer use the rule as a stand-alone argument. For examples, one could argue that "all crows are black." However, if you ever see an albino crow, you can't simply amend the argument to say, "all crows except this one are black": rather, you must acknowledge that there could potentially be many albino crows.So, since God is an exception to the "all things must have been created" rule, He is a proverbial albino crow. Thus, the rule must accept that albino crows exist. Until it can be determined what it is that makes God an "albino crow," we cannot be certain that God is the only albino crow in existence. In fact, until we know what makes God an albino crow, we must accept the possibility that literally anything else might also be an albino crow.So, it isn't about what people might claim exists: it's about what someone might claim exists without having been created. I could say that walruses exist without having been created, and I would have just as much logical support for my argument as creationist have for theirs.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, DD2014. You're right, of course.But, when you ask them to provide the explanation, as Straggler said, it ends up being something like, "God is different," which really isn't a claim at all.Consider:I'm an entomologist. Often, to collect flying insects, we hang up a big white sheet at night and shine an ultraviolet light on it. Lots of insects flock to the sheet.If you were to ask an entomologist why the insects come to the sheet, you will probably get a description of the insect optical system, which often contains a visual pigment that is sensitive to UV light.Many people will then go, "Oh, okay: the sheet is reflecting ultraviolet light. Got it!" They will then proceed to tell their friends that UV light is the answer.Clearly, though, the fact that insects can see it does not explain why they are attracted to it. After all, I've seen a lot of things that I am emphatically not attracted to!With God, the concept is the same: creationists say, "The rules are different for God because he exists outside of time." But, how is that any different from saying, "The rules are different for insects because they see different colors from us"?In actuality, nobody knows what makes the rules different for God, nor what the implications of these different rules would be. I personally can't even get the concept of "existence" to make sense to me without chronology, let alone fathom how the rules of such an existence would function. So, claiming that the rules are different does literally and absolutely nothing to explain the phenomenon.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Deadendhero. Longevity is inherently open-ended: many people die before their time.You are assuming that a phenomenon that can prolong itself infinitely is immune to external sources of interruption.So, in order for your argument to hold, you have to qualify an eternal, all-powerful God. But, this only shows that it isn't God's eternality that prevents Him from dying, but His all-power.Edited by Bluejay, : emfassis

---

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

Hi, Rahvin.I've heard these same arguments several times before, but, like everything else that deals with cosmology, I can't understand it. Let me play a bit of devil's advocate to see if you can help me iron out my cognitive dissonance. That's the question that bugs the hell out of me.The principle of causality seems to defy its own rules.If the principle was brought into existence, doesn't this mean that the principle "predates" itself?Or, if it always existed, wouldn't this mean that its own existence is a violation of itself?Can a principle of nature violate its own rules?Are there possible explanations other than, "it was brought into being" and "it has always existed"?

---

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

Hi, Straggler. Well, I don't know if it's a particularly logical conclusion, but it does seem counter-intuitive (to say the least) that a universe built on the principle of causality is not subject to causality itself.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. Honestly, I don't even know what "quantum fluctuations" means, but, yes, it sounds like something that would be counter-intuitive. ----- Help me out a bit, then, because I'm clearly out of my element here.Are there rules that govern the formation and behavior of physical principles?
Or, can principles just pop up arbitrarily?
Can the rule that nothing comes from fiat have come from fiat itself?

---

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

Hi, Straggler.Sorry for the tacky double-response, but something just came to me: Surely parsimony is irrelevant to things that have no cause.

---

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

Hi, Rahvin. I didn't assume anything: I presented two possibilities, and asked if there were any others.----- How is this not special pleading?

---

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

Hi, Rahvin.Ah! An explanation that makes sense!In a nutshell, you are saying that causality is just the way we perceive movement through time? It sounds good enough. I'd ask for the evidence for it, but I don't think I could understand it even if it was provided for me, so I won't ask.This raises so many questions that I don't even know where to begin.For instance, how can there be a "beginning of time" (which should also be the "beginning of length," the "beginning of height" and the "beginning of width")?
Spacetime is supposed to be growing larger, right? Surely there has to be a "meta-dimension" through which it is growing, right?
My baby is growing taller (through the dimension of height) and wider (width): so, wouldn't growth in a dimension imply that same kind of relationship with some other metric?

---

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

Hi, Phage. It's a little something I like to call inductive reasoning: I have no alternative hypothesis, so the only thing I can do is extrapolate from the null, which I have taken, in this instance, to be the behavior of the four dimensions that I know about.I also phrased my personal thoughts in the form of a question, which should have indicated to you that I wanted to discuss it. Criticism of my usage of inductive logic is not discussion. Unless a suitable, testable alternative can be presented, I have no choice but to use the null hypothesis as the basis for my reasoning.-----And, here's my major point of confusion:You suggest that I should rely on observations. I will show why this is not possible in this discussion. But, let me start at the beginning first.It seems this discussion has not resolved the infinite regression concept of First Cause, but has only generated a new dichotomy. Either (1) causality (or an equivalent phenomenon) applies outside the universe, or (2) it doesn’t.If causality does apply outside the universe, we have to confront the same dichotomy at that next outward layer. We will have to continue confronting the dichotomy at each layer, until the pattern of nested causalities either reaches a singularity, regresses infinitely, or loops back on itself.If causality does not apply outside the universe, then there simply is no explanation for the existence of the universe. In this case, Rahvin is right, and the universe simply exists. If this is the case, then none of our observation-based logical reasoning can say a thing about the outside, even in principle.See, without causation, there is no reason why observational evidence would line up with phenomena, but would just be. And, any phenomenon that might happen outside could simply have no explanation: it could just be (like stuff from Out-space, from the Ender’s Game series of novels by Orson Scott Card (who is a Mormon)).In that kind of environment, a God who creates universes is just as parsimonious as an uncreated universe. Nothing has to be explained, so any possibility can happen without any assumptions at all. Thus, literally everything satisfies parsimony. So, parsimony does not rule out God.

---

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

Hi, Phage.First off, let me apologize for being grouchy and rude in my last post: I had no reason for that. With all due respect, I don't know why I should assume there is a departure. Maybe the fact that I can't see these other dimensions or move through them would mean something, but, as demonstrated by Rahvin, differences in perception between spatial and temporal dimensions does not prevent the same logic from applying, so I don't see why it shouldn't work here too.----- Incorrect: #2 accounts for the eventuality of there being no "outside."Having a non-causal "outside" and having no "outside" at all will both result in the universe "just being." It's the "just being" that I take exception to: it cannot, even in principle, be tested. A non-causal mechanism does not produce evidence, so no observations can be made to either support or deny "it just is."What allows the universe to "just be"?
Why is the same allowance not granted to some other multi-dimensional construct, or to some other type of "thing"?
How is this not special pleading?Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.