Out of curiosity, do you know any other papers that seriously present the idea in a way that is less....off-kilter?


I'm tempted to say that axiomatically a prime cause is a cause which is itself without cause. It seems obvious that without the existence of a prime cause we are left with the problem of infinite causal regress - something which I find to be more disturbing than the possible existence of a prime cause.

A more philosophical and explicitly Christian argument would be that the question "what caused God" is an unmeaningful question and that it would be more appropriate to consider God as the source from which all causality flows.

A justification from scientific principles is that a straightforward interpretation of quantum mechanics illustrates that particles within our universe already exhibit non-causal behavior which destroys the idea that everything must have cause. A counter argument to using this as justification for God would be to claim that perhaps the universe itself appeared spontaneously, thereby avoiding the problem of infinite causal regress. My problem with this counter-argument is that particles which exhibit non-causal behavior within our spacetime still obey the conservation of mass/energy, which would seem to imply that the act of creating our spacetime still requires cause.

tl;dr of preceding paragraph :
a) God exists eternally (see Bible thumping to follow)
b) Under the most straightforward interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is nondeterministic, meaning it exhibits non-causal behavior.
c) By (b), not everything requires a causal source
d) Events justified by (b) and (c) still do not violate conservation of mass/energy
e) By (d), the act of creation still requires a causal source outside of our spacetime
f) (a) provides the source required by (e).



God pre-existing the universe and being outside of time:



Note also divine abuse of what we consider to be proper tense:




And just for good measure, since I've been drawing from natural revelation:

I like the way you've logically framed this. While I can see how some could propose alternate theories, I can't see them as any more or less valid than this one. Thus, whether or not God exists is still a definite maybe.

Oops, the first one gave me a database error and showed up late...

I remember reading the abstract of a paper that about a year ago, but my google-fu is weak.

Are you actually suggesting that modern physical theories regarding the creation of the universe don't obey law of conservation of mass/energy (they are the same thing)? Even the (arguably) simplest theory, mainstream Big Bang theory, is in complete accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. The total energy of the universe is, and always will be, 0.

If you look at time as something that is intricately tied to space (as modern physics does), without space you can have no time. Thus, the problem of causality is nonsensical. As I have previously stated:

To cause is an action
Actions must take place at a certain time
Therefore causality must take place at a certain time

However, before the universe existed (and I hesitate to say "before" because it has no meaning in this context, but human languages are temporal in nature), there was no time. It is a perfectly valid sentence to say "the universe has existed since the beginning of time" because the two coincide.

A universe with no cause makes perfect sense even with our limited understanding of physics.

Dude, there's a pretty famous equation regarding that - and most particle physicists use eV as a unit of mass for the sake of convenience even though from a technical perspective the correct unit is eV/c^2


One of the largest open questions in physics is why the Big Bang didn't create equal amounts of matter and antimatter and blow everything to sh*t as soon as it happened. But my argument was more that the noncausality of QM takes place within our spacetime and thereby can not introduce anything new, but that the creation of spacetime itself was an act which required the introduction of something new: the Big Bang wasn't just the (possible) creation of matter and energy, it was the creation of spacetime itself.



I agree with the large paragraph in the middle of your argument but I disagree that "actions" in the metaphysical way in which we've been speaking of them require time. More specifically, I do not believe that being requires time. If spacetime finitely is, then it must have a source which is outside of time. Even if you argue that it is inappropriate to use cause and effect relationships to describe the origin of spacetime, we can revert to my analogy of God as the infinite source from which the finite being of spacetime flows. (I'm using being and is as verbs several times here, don't get confused by the unusual sentence formation).


Thanks =)

It doesn't need to create equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The answer most physicists (such as Hawking) give is that gravitational potential energy (negative energy) cancels out all of the positive energy (rest energy (matter) and kinetic energy).


I have further problems with your spacetime must come from an outside infinite source (god) statement. You stated:

If spacetime finitely is, then it must have a nontemporal source.

I do argue that it is inappropriate to use a cause and effect relationship with the origin of spacetime. I think that it's a misstatement to say that spacetime was even created. They have always existed, because without one you cannot have the other. Talking about "before the universe existed" is just as nonsensical as talking about what lies outside of the universe.

Furthermore, I pose this question:
Why would an infinite being, to whom time doesn't really mean anything, create the universe? Said being would already know everything it was going to create, everything that was going to happen, and how everything would end. And if said being were infinite, it would gain nothing, because infinity is already complete.

We could thus claim CP violation provides support for the anthropic principle, which from a theistic perspective is essentially the Teleological Argument on a cosmic scale.


At this point you are again arguing from the assumption that the physical universe is all that exists.

If the idea that the temporal dimension of our spacetime has a finite origin makes you uncomfortable I can see why you gravitated towards a cyclical model of the universe, but if you want to argue without acknowledging the potential existence of the supernatural, I'm going to ask you to justify
a) your argument with better physical models
b) your belief in the the normative value of reason without allowance for the supernatural.


For your outer clause, my argument from natural revelation (with respect to observations of human nature) is innate creativity.
For your inner clause, I should clarify my belief that time should mean something to the being (after all, they created it), but that they exist outside of it, and that time-scale doesn't really mean anything. I'll justify this by making analogy to the equivalence in cardinality between the subsets of R given by the intervals (0.0,1.0) and (0.0, 10000000000000000000.0)


Only if that being chose to impose determinism.


Learn about infinity.

The anthropic principle is a silly argument. Just because we evolved into this universe doesn't mean it's fine tuned any way or the other. In a universe that functions with a much lower gravitational constant or some other weird alteration of our universe, I'd bet you life would evolve and think "oh, this universe is fine tuned just for us." See Douglas Adams' puddle metaphor.


I think our problem here is that language is failing us both in properly conveying our sentiments; language, a temporal construct, makes it difficult to properly talk about things happening without time. I, however, anticipated this and worded my argument very precisely. I said "Time and space have [i[always[/i] existed. I mean this as a tautological statement, because "always" means "at all times." So, time has existed for the entire existence of time. I think our problem arises because you see this:

---god infinite being outside of the universe------decides to create universe*BANG* -> space, time, etc.

I think you interpreted my statement as:

time--->--->--->--->*BANG*> space, time, etc

But what I meant was:

*BANG* > space, time, etc

And I think that our main problem is a conflicting premise. I hold that it is irrelevant to talk about any sort of cause occurring outside of time because I don't accept the idea that any sort of "action" (existence, thought, creation, eating a nice sandwich) can take place outside of time. That's why you can't talk about a cause to the universe, it wasn't caused, it is. But again language fails me.
I'm basically just arguing big bang theory, more or less.

Yes that is what I meant, time is relevant in the idea that a god created it, but in existing outside of time, 2^100000 years is no different than 2^-100000 years. So yes, scale is irrelevant.

But if a being didn't know everything it was going to create, what all would happen, and how it would end, it would invalidate that being's omniscience (knowing ALL things. Every single thing.). Furthermore, if that being existed outside of time, they would be able to view time as a whole. In other words, imagine time as a string, with a beginning and an end. While a point travelling on the string only know where it's been and has a vague sense of where it's going, a "creator" of the string can see all points on the string simultaneously (omniscience).

I know about the hotel paradox, infinity, set theory, cardinality, etc. That statement was following the previous one that I just commented on. God would know everything that it, and its creation, was going to do, because God is omniscient. Therefore the actual act of the universe existing seems rather nonsensical, because an omniscient god would already know what it would gain from it.

What if God is only Omniscient from our perspective, not his own?

And what if a purple elephant came flying through the god a window? XD

well, that is certainly one big window... and you will have massive damages you need to pay for..

But if the universe developed without CP violation there might not be anything at all



This is in fact the problem, not what you thought it was in your paragraph previous to this one. I understood what you meant, but disagree that it is unmeaningful to talk about the origins of spacetime.



A nondeterministic view of omniscience is that God knows all possible ends, but that He chooses not to force it to develop down a preset path. Time is an ant crawling along from the root of a tree out to the leaves. God can see every leaf in the tree, and is capable of picking up the ant and forcing it to take whatever turns He wants, but instead wants to see what it does on its own.

If you want to make your omniscience argument, you'll need to dig up a Calvinist.

As for CP violation, I think that your argument is merely a modern incarnation of the god of the gaps argument. "Science hasn't quite explained this one, so it must be god." I think history has shown that these kind of statements don't turn out that well for the theists. I think by the time we're dead we'll look at how far particle physics has come and say something along the lines of "oh ha, we actually believed that these interactions were unpredictable. lolololololol." God of the gaps argument doesn't sit well with me.

I see your nondeterminism and raise you the bible:

Job 36:4 "Be assured that my words are not false;
one who has perfect knowledge is with you."

Job 28:24 "For he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens."

Matthew 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father."

Isaiah 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come. "

Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

I'm not going to join the conversation/debate, but I'm going to leave this here.

We know (props to Gödel) that there are fundamental limitations to the abilities of deductive reason. We know (props to Heisenberg) that there are fundamental limitations to our ability to measure the physical state of the universe, and we know (props to Bell) that there are fundamental limitations requiring us to reject at least one of determinism, reality, and locality. These latter two place fundamental limitations on our ability to correctly build inferential knowledge. The error is not in believing that God can act in the gaps, but in prematurely announcing a perceived gap to be such.

And since we're on the subject of reason, I'm still waiting to hear your position on the normative value of reason, and, if you accept it to have such, I expect you to justify that belief (and if you don't, to explain why you find it worthwhile to keep this up).







Nondeterminism is essential for free will, which in turn is essential for human moral agency, which in turn is a key assumption of Christian belief.



For a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient (in the sense of knowing all possible ends) to assure you that its words are an accurate prediction is equivalent to it promising to use its omnipotence to ensure that that set of events come about. This does not limit the nondeterminism of events in which the being does not interfere. This can trivially be shown in terms of a nondeterministic Turing machine with multiple accept states.


This does not conflict with my description of an omniscience which can allow for free will/nondeterminism. Seeing all that is (and even all that could be) is distinct from seeing all that will be.



If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a Calvinist. There is nothing in that passage which is contradictory to God's will being that events should progress freely. Note that my interpretation still allows for God to specifically will that something should or should not happen (of which this passage is also descriptive) while admitting of the third possibility that God wills nondeterminism.


Drawing an argument based on proposition from a work of poetic expression is a risky proposition, and doing so requires a framework within which poetic metaphors can be interpreted and a deep understanding of the intentions of the writer. In this case, claiming that God knows the whole span of our lives is clearly contradictory to a belief that humans have moral agency. I don't usually find Bible-thumping to be productive in an argument with non-Christians, but since you insist I'll bring the Bible thumping: let's take a look at two passages which were written as a series of propositions rather than poetically and see whose position they support.



The use of the word "predestined" here is actually translated from the Greek word proorizo. Proorizo is more properly understood with respect to its shared etymology with our modern English word "horizon" and has to do with the establishment of boundaries - a translation which is easily applied to my analogy of the ant and the bush: we can understand God as pruning the bush of limbs which he deems to be unsuitable thereby bounding the potential set of paths which the ant can take. That still leaves the question of which we and us are the subject of those passages (and particularly the part about "before the creation of the world"), and this is a subject of open debate between Christians subscribing to various theologies, but I've heard multiple theologians and scholars of the Greek language argue that the subject of the writings are people who fulfill certain criteria rather than specific individuals and it is these criteria which were determined before the creation of the world.


Make it stop?

just have faith all of you, and beleive what you will

Before I address what I find to be the distinguishing features of the Christian religion, I want to reiterate something else:


Now, from a theological perspective, I'll say that Christianity is unique in its recognition that salvation is about restoring relationships rather than legalistically establishing some arbitrary standard of goodness - not that there aren't some pretty a legalistic churches, but they're missing the point of "Now go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice", and "all of the Law and the Prophets" resting on two commandments to love fully.

Christianity is also *mostly* unique in realizing that doing f***ed up things to ourselves, to other people, and to the world around us is an inherent part of human nature. Buddhism comes close to the mark on this one, but still misses because it also teaches that with enough self-effort we can unleash our true un-f***ed-up selves and achieve enlightenment.

To play devil's advocate for a sec, which christian religion is the "correct" one, and which ones are all going to burn in eternal hellfire for not converting?

That's a great question to ask God if you ever get to meet Him -- let me know what he says. Until then, all I can do is say that the poorer anyone's (whether they self identify as belonging to one Christian denomination or another, or some other religion altogether) understanding is of Jesus's teachings and that he was God-incarnate coming to offer reconciliation in our relationship with him, the harder it's going to be for them to be part of the restored Creation.

Nah. What kind of God would knowingly condemn 66% of the world's population to eternal hell simply because they were born in the wrong part of the world? I don't argue about religion much any more because it's just not worth arguing about.