It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why the universe has no cause

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:30 AM
First of all, "the universe" is the totality of time and space and their contents. And you can include any "other dimensions" under that heading. If you want to ask "why?" the answer is simple: "why not?". If the puzzle is EXISTENCE, then EVERY thing that exists belongs in the explanandum. We can't segregate unless we are presupposing a conclusion - which is exactly what many theists do.

Putting everything in entails that the universe is NOT an object, or set of objects, existing IN TIME - which is what theism tries to take it as. In order to do that it has to help itself to the idea of time-before-time - a series of moments when no objects existed. There is nothing wrong with that idea itself, but there is no use in positing it.

The only reason for positing it is to have a time in which the act of creation can occur. This is needed because "creation" (and causation generally) is a temporal concept. A creator PRECEDES and PRE-EXISTS the creation. If he didn't, there would be as much reason to suppose the "creation" created "the creator". It is the temporal difference that is vital in distinguishing cause and effect.

But the temporal nature of causal relations dooms any attempt to make sense of a "creator of the universe". No "creator" can ever be "outside time". But even if we help ourselves to a "time before time" (before the "created" universe), we still have the problem: WHAT "created" THIS time? Whoever it was, needed to be IN TIME to do his "creating". This problem applies quite generally not just to the "time before time" proposal, but to any similar way to evade the issue by appealing to "higher" or "other dimensions". Put the creator in the 47th dimension, if you want. He still can't have created it himself.

The problem is also not solved by just saying that he existed "from eternity" - ie. making the time-before-time of infinite extent. The question "what created THAT?" is as good as it is in the case of the universe itself.

The question that needs to be asked is: is there any genuine mystery in an uncaused universe? It is HERE that the issue of tensed & untensed theories of time is relevant. My diagnosis of the theist's predicament is that his question "what CAUSED it all?" is premised on the assumption there must have been nothing AND THEN the universe happened. He is assuming the time-before-time, even if he wants to avoid admitting it. But why imagine there MUST be a t-b-t? It is because of the tensed view of time. The difference between the tensed & tenseless views (and why the tensed one is incoherent) is explained here:

Mellor on Tense

If there was a First Event, which is now PAST, but was once PRESENT, then it must also have been FUTURE - that is the theist's intuition. But it is simply false. The inference depends on the tensed theory, and the tensed theory is just incoherent, as it tacitly assumes the tenseless alternative to make sense of itself. And accepting tenselessness exorcises the illusion that there is any mystery about the universe having a First Event that was not PRECEDED by anything, and not in any CAUSAL relation to anything.

One other thing: if you think the trouble is that our words "cause" and "create" are "merely human" and "can't comprehend God", etc - then just don't use them. You haven't evaded the argument, you just accepted it.

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:48 AM
ALL of words were invented by man. Trying to understand something when all of your definitions are pretty much made up is impossible. Hence we will never know the true answers to any of these questions. Word themselves are just vibrations in the air. Its really if you have faith in the words or not. If you believe in something that it really exsists, then it will "seem" real. But to truely understand the answers of everything, I believe we must think on a diffrent level, or at least have another angle on things.

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM

without getting into some very serious philosophy and especially where you maybe need to look a bit more before exploring this further would specifically be Logic. and not of the spock kind. Maybe Russel or probably better would be to read some works on set theory for the mathematical kind, though I prefer the pre mathematical Logic enquiries. I hope you learn from exploring this, you seem to have a good mind and grasp of philosophy already which would be improved by maybe studying this more.

However having said that the main problem with Philosophy has often been the denial of scientific evidense or proof of some new questions, or answers to current questions. It usually like accepted memes of science itself takes a while to catch up.

Lets just look very simply (have 10 mins before going out!!).

Time can only exist if there is distance between two sets or more of matter or positions in space, to measure the time taken by travelling at a certain velocity to reach that point.

The idea that time only runs in one direction is a trick of perception and it is a very odd thing to accept when you look at physics closely. We should have the same epitymological access to future as well as past events.

From the above we know that if nothing exists within as you postulate the "universe" then logically before any act of creation or beginning nothing could have existed anyhow within this "universe"

If therefore something pre cursored the first events of your "universe" i.e. time and all matter it must by definition not be part of the universe anyhow as it is not of the nature of the universe you postulate.

The above statement is proven by reverse logic, as if time or anything you postulate existed before your "universe" then that in itself would have been a "universe" of itself and maybe a casual factor in our current "universe"

Therefore anything existing prior to (fuzzy logic I know lol) the inception of this "universe" must have been operating outside of the constraints of the "universe" as you state it and therefore has no relation to the current universe anyhow.

Have to go taxi !



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Math was invented by man. There is nothing to say that another "Type" of math exsists in the universe.

Please dont say this is impossible.....that is just a way to say your theory is abolute truth, which of course does not exsist.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by R3KR]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:51 AM
Just to add and again back to this one on way out...apoligies for gramah, spelling or just mad genius!

It is not true that a "creator" or casual factor in our "universe" could not have existed before time or our "universe". This is because that would imply that the causual event or the creator was subject to time. therefore to be subject to time that creator would have to occupy a specific are or point in space, or more deeply exist in all of time and space at the same time.

Either way the fact of that truth means that time (which is closely related to velocity and matter space no matter, space(distance between seperate points) is not something that would affect as you postulate the craetor because they either inhabit all of time simutaneously or are not subject to its laws.

What is happening in your statement IMHO (and much respect to you I had to read and think about it a lot!) is a confusion pertaining to Logic as stated in my first post. Using the basis of our current laws and understanding of things such as time as "observed" by us, to events prior to their existense is a misnomenoir. It is impossible to argue a truth or fact using that basis of reference. It is simply Illogical.

What it also does seem to rely heavily upon is the material world and solid entities and things such like.

Time is only a reality and concept when there is a differance in locale between two points of matter or wave function whatever. Well before the universe was here time logically could not exist. There was no seperateness between things (maybe this is where the true face of god is, looking at many belieif systems postulation taht all is god, god is in everything etc) because things (as we call differant vibrations and points in our universe) did not in themselves exist.

The Void is all and nothing. Now for a "universe" as we know it with set boundaries to come into being within that Void there still logically is a place outside of our universe, as the void by its very nature has no edges or boundaries.

Therefore the "universe" sits in this void. If the creator therefore is this void any model of him measured against our universe is irrelevant and non sensical. That is not to say however that if a casual event or creator then came into the universe from the void that then they would not be subject to the laws of physics as we do. though I dare say being amazing enough and powerfull enough to exist without parameters and in totallity and create all we observe, would make him impartial to trivai like that!


(I should have said he/she above for god) soz conditioning!

ps dont try and measure wind with weighing scales, which is what I feel you may be trying to do.

new topics

top topics

log in