Debate Question 8
Submitted by b3y0ndl09ic on Fri, 02/01/2008 - 03:57
Question 8: Often, theists make the argument that everything requires a creator, so therefore the universe requires a creator. But then, one can ask who created God, but the common response is that he is outside of time or creation. If God is outside creation, why can't the universe be outside of creation instead?
1) The Big Bang. 2) If you change to instead hypothesize about the megaverse: a)has not been proven or even evidenced. b) has spatial quality and temporal dimension(s) even if positing greater than 3 spatial dimensions or 1 temporal dimension. Therefore it cannot be the creator of such things, since it would be definable in its creation (limit). Why can a creator not be definable in its creation? A creator cannot create the limit of itself expressed beyond itself, for all things definable have limits (are definable). God can only be limited by the nature of itself, in that it cannot contradict itself (but yet still cannot be definable as it has no relation). (A definable thing necessarily has limits, but a limited thing need not be definable (only in the case of God), not "special pleading" read on)...a potato can be limited by the definition of a potato and definable by the definition of a potato as it relates positively to all that it is not). But, God cannot give a limit in structure (such as dimensions) to its creation, by which it can also retroactively be described (definable) for then the creation adds positive correlation to the creator, who must be outside/beyond/apart from all that it created. Therefore, the admittance of a positive correlation as a result of the creation of time contradicts God by change of status. At first God is undefinable, and then God becomes definable through the admittance of time. But since change only occurs through time, and God by definition creates time, this becomes circular and contradictory, and therefore God could not exist. God's undefinable nature is not and should not be synonymous with contradiction. Thereby, the universe, or more correctly (as I have shown since science predicts a beginning for the universe) the megaverse, cannot be the ultimate creator, since it would be its creation in full, and could not exist apart from it (it created the change of itself, but cannot change itself because it was "before" time). Furthermore, supposing somehow that it could be changed by itself; since it supposedly created the capacity for change (time), it would have a hand in creating itself (as its change would have only have "virtually" occurred since it did not change). Creation is the change from non-existence to existence. A non-existence cannot create itself, for its reality would have to be present to become present and therefore could not, not exist. God is the first cause, not because it created itself, or because it always existed, but because it is and it is not, not.
God is not definable in its creation, either, as it "created" something from "nothing," in which "created" is merely a human approximation. God is not the creator of itself or anything like it ("created in the image of God" - the Bible uses metaphor). God cannot be definable retroactively by its creation as the "Creator," since the term "created" applied to God has no real meaning to man. As to why something that is totally beyond any meaning or comprehension whatsoever, nevertheless is, and at the same time falsifies the possibility of merely the unknown (and not God in its place), (the position of a skeptic), you will have to wait.
Also, I am not an adherent to First Cause arguments, so don't throw that at me. Positing, ALONE, something you know not what as being the first uncaused cause because it "seems" that everything must have a cause and supposedly a regressus ad infinitum is impossible, is a ridiculous argument. (Further, a regressus ad infinitum has been shown to be possible anyways, see p. 224-229 Crescas' Critique of Aristotle by Harry Austryn Wolfson, Harvard University Press, 1929). Also, I think it should be abundantly clear by now, though I've learned to try to not make any assumptions, that I am not a Christian.
[Mod: moved to appropriate forum]
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.ritskeptics.org/trackback/100
I agree with your last two
I agree with your last two paragraphs, but I don't understand what you mean in your first one. Could you perhaps rephrase that?
Do they? Are you sure? As far as I know, the limits of the universe are infinite, or at least can be considered as such. And in mathematics we can define plenty of things that have infinite limits, or no defined limit at all.
--
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
Yeah, I'm having trouble
Yeah, I'm having trouble understanding just what you mean... I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to make...
Firstly, I did not mean
Firstly, I did not mean "limit" in the mathematical sense. Nevertheless, in mathematics, infinite limits are descriptions of the behavior of a function, and are thereby definable in a certain construct. Similarly, regarding the nature of mathematical infinities, in transfinite number theory, infinities are distinguishable by type. The infinity of integers for example, is limited in not being the infinity of real numbers. Regarding the universe, it can only be considered infinite given certain assumptions. For example, in regards to the expansion of the universe, it may be stated that while the universe has grown, since there is no center of the expansion, the universe has always been infinite (presuming no limitation from the megaverse). However, postulating our universe alone as all that exists, at this point seems unlikely given the mystery of gravitation. Further, spacetime itself appears limited by the Planck length, and even singularities, such as a black hole, are definable (not only do they not encompass everything, but they clearly have an event horizon).
Really the issue here is not infinities though, as my second paragraph indicates regarding a regressus ad infinitum. There is no doubt in my mind that infinities do exist. The distinguishing point here is between definable infinities, and undefinable infinities. The second is the kind that I do not see any evidence of. (Also, keep in mind, I am not stating that God is an undefinable infinity).
I'm making the argument that
I'm making the argument that your question "why can't the universe be outside of creation" is misguided. Nothing physical or definable can be "outside" of creation.
I think the problem you have
I think the problem you have with the question I originally worded is merely semantic. When one uses Aquinas' Causality argument, they say that there had to be a first cause, and this is God. I'm saying, why does one need to posit that there was an external force driving the universe, and not some inner working of the universe itself. Basically using Occam's Razor here, don't multiply hypotheses superfluously.
--
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
The universe (or megaverse)
The universe (or megaverse) cannot be the driving force of the universe itself. This is a logical contradiction, so Occam's Razor does not apply. If the universe is said to have existed apart from time and yet have specific relation through time to the rest of the stuff in the universe itself, which it created (which is itself), then it could not have existed apart from time. As stated previously, the universe, or more correctly (as I have shown since science predicts a beginning for the universe) the megaverse, cannot be the ultimate creator, since it would be its creation in full, and could not exist apart from it (it created the change of itself, but cannot change itself because it was "before" time).
The only "inner working" of the universe itself that would suffice for the creation of everything, would have to be something totally unlike anything, including the universe itself, for the reasons already given in the first post. Thereby, whether you are talking about some "inner working" of the universe which we have no idea what it is, or God, they are the same concept. The creator of everything has to be something undefinable.
Sorry, maybe it's because
Sorry, maybe it's because I'm currently fighting off a bout of rhinitus, but I'm still not quite getting just what you mean... Megaverse? Is that a non-standard term for multiverse?
Are you trying to say that the universe cannot "create" itself?
Are you trying to get the idea of a Spinozan god?
Sorry again...
1) Correct, megaverse is a
1) Correct, megaverse is a synonym for multiverse. When I first learned of this term, I learned it as megaverse, but since then have seen it as multiverse several times, so perhaps it is now non-standard.
2) Correct, the universe cannot "create" itself, anymore than a first cause can create itself.
3) Spinoza was a pantheist, and that is not what I am advocating. Nature is not God as I stated in #2. Whether you want to call it some "inner working" of the universe (where "of the universe" is only loosely applied because it must be totally unlike the universe as I have already shown), or a deity, makes no difference. To reiterate, an "inner working" of the universe defined as such, is not pantheistic.
Thank you for your patience in asking questions. I hope that you feel better soon.