Finding God through Faith and Reason - St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of an Uncaused Cause Part 1

[BeatMasterPhil]

I have actually always been surprised that there are still people out there that turn down logic and reason in showing that there must be an uncaused cause; something that exists out of its own necessity which nothing else causes. Once you show through reason and logic that infinite regress is impossible in a reasonable universe, you show that there cannot be an infinite amount of things and a beginning-less universe is also an impossibility.

[MrSandykramer]

@BeatMasterPhil

That which exists outside of time, space and matter has no cause within time, space or matter, but is not precluded from existence outside those dimensions.

[jorgecarrillo2]

@BeatMasterPhil is your theory of static univers, unchangeable, un created, unmutable, conciliar with the Big Bang theory?

[BeatMasterPhil]

@jorgecarrillo2 My beliefs are completely compatible with the Big Bang theory. (From my knowledge I do not believe that a static and unchangeable universe is the main supported scientific thought about the universe at this time.) The item that you commented on is merely showing that the Big Bang theory, reason, and logic point toward a necessary beginning to all of space-time, meaning that there would need to be something outside of space-time to bring space/time itself into existence.

[jorgecarrillo2]

@BeatMasterPhil Correct, The Universe, Mass+energy+space+time exists only from a singular point. But What brought such point to existance?, Why it existed in stead of not to exist at all?, what was cheaper the existence or not to exist?

However things exists, though in the beggining there was nothing nor time, no energy, no light no space, only mater, . Superheated, by who?, by what?.

God is spirit, he is not subjected to dimensional universe as we are. So he can exist out of Space-time.

[ndzoko]

@jorgecarrillo2 God is spirit, he is not subjected to dimensional universe as we are. So he can exist out of Space-time>. Bulls...

2 + 2 makes 5. ergo 4 + 4 makes 10. When you start with a false or unproven statement you can come to any conclusion..

[GodKillerAtheist]

let me downthumb this piece of garbage

[garenth1988]

so as you can see even if a uncaused cause is necessary it MAY already exist. and that is mass-energy. but I think I have shown that an uncaused cause is not necessarily necessary. either way the idea of a God is not necessary to introduce if one needed to explain the beginning causes (which we in do not know and will not claim to know as scientists until we have evidence to support our conclusion) this begs the question why a beginning cause is even necessary, which is unknown at this point.

[garenth1988]

What science has discovered so far is that there exists a law of mass-energy conservation. the example of the turbine is more of a transfer of energy (because energy-mass transfer is all that happens. so cause must be interpreted as the cause of transfer not the cause of creation because we do not have an example of creating mass-energy from non mass-energy) therefore the universe always had and will have the same amount of energy. so this uncaused cause MAY be mass-energy but that is unsure.

[garenth1988]

so that shows the conclusion is still invalid even if we grant the premise of the infinite regression of cause causes to explain our physical universe. I further claim that this premise is in fact invalid as well. It is true that the Big Bang points to a point of where expansion began (notice I do not say the beginning of our universe because the Big Bang only states that the universe was once a point mass that began to expand in a hyper inflationary state)

[garenth1988]

this argument of an infinite regression of cause causes becoming zero is in fact not valid. He claims that cause cause 1 will not be anywhere without cause cause 2 and so on and so on but in an inifinte series of causes causes the cause cause n will exist thus allowing for cause cause n-1. If it is an infinite cause cause series than if somone points to cause cause m I can point to cause cause m+1. In this sense it is a diverging series of causes causes (always increasing without bound).

[littlemudlick]

I don't think the infinite regression idea stands up to reason. If we know that everything that has motion has been put into motion by something else, it tells us that at one point there had to be an initial mover. Otherwise, no motion would be taking place. There has to be an initiation somewhere and at sometime. Infinite regression can't account for that. As far as your "n-1" analogy: in an infinite set, you can't define any single number (no reference point) which means "n" isn't real...

[garenth1988]

First of all, as a Math major I deal with infinite sets at least once a day such that I can name a single element or two elements and even sequence them. This is especially true for something known as countably infinite sets. like the set involving (1,2,3,4,5,....). Even though there is an infinite number of elements in that set it is countably infinite because I can sequence the elements according to an index with the natural numbers.

[garenth1988]

Don't tell me you can't define any single number (or reference point) and the element not being real because I just gave you an example of something like that. Secondly, the theist assertion is that every existence has a cause. They call upon the idea of God as this cause but the fallacy there is that this implies an existence of God which by the theist assertion, needs a cause since it is in existence.

[littlemudlick]

The point is this: the idea of an actual (not a potential) infinite is impossible. If the universe is infinite and time is infinite, then we wouldn't even be here would we? I mean, we would have had to have traversed an infinite amount of time to get where we are, which is impossible. It is impossible because there is no beginning in an infinite set which makes it impossible for thir to be a present. A beginning is necessary, that is the only logical conclusion. What do you think?

[garenth1988]

Firstly, time in the forward direction can be perceived to be infinite. So, even if time did have a beginning, which for the record I am not necessarily denying but I just cannot say it IS so with conviction, time as we understand is an infinite set but in the forward direction. So this infinite set, one in which is infinite in the forward direction, which I undoubtedly would think that you believe exists, does have a beginning.

[garenth1988]

What I believe you mean is time as a set with inifinitability in both the forward and backward direction has no beginning. In that case yes it would not have a "beginning". Now you make the claim that it is impossible for the present to exist in an infinite (both directions) set of time. I ask why is that? How do YOU know that is it IMPOSSIBLE. I do not see sufficient evidence to make such a claim so I do not see it as logical.

[garenth1988]

Consider the set of all real integers. It is infinite in both the forward direction and the backward direction. ie, {....,-2,-1,0,1,2,...}. In this set we can point to the number 1 even though the set is infinite in both directions. If you can transverse over -1 to get from -2 to 0 why is it that you cannot transverse over an infinite number of sets.

[Mkvine]

Hmm, I see what your logic is in saying that we can POINT to number 1 in the set of all real integers. However, my question is, coming from the "negative" infinity side, how do you even ARRIVE at number 1 in the first place? In other words, "starting" from negative infinity, how would you arrive at integer 1?

[garenth1988]

Starting from negative infinity you can see how you would get to negative infinity plus one. that is where we could be at. At negative infinity plus one. What I am saying is that we know time exists and we can compare our world. The laws of physics are essentially just a large equation where certain factors or laws plays different roles and if you plug in different values of time you will get different timeshots of the universe's history.

[Mkvine]

But doesn't negative infinity plus one still equal negative infinity? I just want to know, if we "start" from negative infinity, how can we arrive at integer one? "What happened before the universe," ah yes, this is the great question that humans have always pondered on...

[garenth1988]

well no negative infinity plus one is not equal to negative infinity. Most of what we deal with in terms of incorporating infinity involves addition or estimation which in that case the infinity will "overpower the negative one" thus leaving you with properties from negative infinity and negative infinity plus one. but when examining the individual numbers negative infinity and negative infinity plus one. And that question is essentially the same as what happened to the universe

[garenth1988]

And yet on the other hand even if you do confide our universe to our perceptions that does not have the support from the mathematics of it only the personal perception, then you are going to have to beg the question of what happened before the universe. What existed prior? Now, we do see a beginning of the "universe" that incorporates the laws of physics but science does not label that as the absolute beginning but rather the beginning of the universe as we have observed it.

[garenth1988]

The point is this: As a supporter and an individual who is very fond of science I am very aware of the fact that there may be a lot more to the universe than what we understand right now. To confide the entire universe to a comparison of our own experience of everything needing a beginning is illogical because we do not know the entire capacities of the universe.

[garenth1988]

I do not necessarily think with a conviction that time is infinite in both directions but I and no one else can logically rule that out as a possibility based on the information that humanity understands now. I also want to point out that I do not positively think with absolute conviction that God DOES NOT EXIST. But I must say the same of unicorns and invisible pixies. It is a positive claim to say he exists so it is the burden of those making the claim to prove it.

[garenth1988]

Same with your claim of the impossibility of the existence of the present if time is an infinite (in both directions) set. You have not provided sufficient evidence for such a claim so I must take it as fallacious.

[garenth1988]

If the theist calls upon a greater God to be the cause of the God that causes the existence of our universe and its physical laws, then it is claimed there is existence in that greater God. So, again, by the theist assertion, the existence of this greater God calls upon the necessity of its cause.

[garenth1988]

Now, if the theist places a caviot where the intial God does not need a cause because it is by definition always eternal, then why can that caviot be placed upon the laws of physics. Either way, in the first scenario you get the inifinite regression that very well is present know matter how much you try not to understand.

[garenth1988]

In the second scenario you get a caviot that is arbitrary and of no reason. Now the atheist, or rather more correctly, the agnostic assumption is no assumption. We do not KNOW if every existence needs a cause and do not claim to KNOW. So in that aspect we do not place an answer to the question of our very beginning origins because there is not enough information to do so.

[garenth1988]

"I don't know how the laws of physics began or even if a beginning is necessary" is the only right answer based on the information that we have know.

[DeimosSaturn]

The Kalam argument, even if we grant you its validity, and it is in fact invalid, does nothing to make God evident in reality. I can exhaustively prove that the angles of triangles always add up to 180 degrees (given we agree on the axioms of Euclidean geometry) but it does nothing to make Triangles evident in reality.

[TheHonestTheist]

"it is in fact invalid"

How?

"does nothing to make God evident in reality"

Actually it does work toward proving the existence of God, because it shows that the universe had a cause. Which is one more step toward God, no it doesn't prove God. But it does show that a cause is needed which is an important step.