Is there a god?
It is customary to speak of the Universe when we are really refering to the Known Universe. There are two different concepts, and if English, or our scientists, were more exact, we would have two different words.
Known Universe - The Space/Time continuum usually thought to have been caused by the phenomena refered to as the "Big Bang". It is approximately 15 to 20 billion years old, and approximately 30 to 40 billion light years in diameter...and expanding.
Universe as a whole - That which is everything that exists. All things, all events, all causes. Every existent in existence or ever in existence or that ever will be in existence. The all in all.
From a metaphysical viewpoint, the Known Universe is irrelevent when it comes to the first cause debate. We know the first cause of the Known Universe, or believe we do anyway. We do not know the cause of the first cause.
There are two primary ways of understanding the first cause problem when it comes to the Universe as a whole. The realist/objectivist one says that the Universe as a whole is finite and eternal. And that it did not have a cause, it just is. This makes sense from the standpoint that "The Universe as a whole is that which is everything that exists, and any cause of it is also an existent, therefore a part of the Universe as a whole." This sounds rather slippery, but trust me when I tell you that it is all slippery at this level.
The religious/faith one says that the Universe as a whole may be finite/infinite, eternal/noneternal as a Creator/s sees fit. And that this supreme creator then has the finite and eternal characteristics usually ascribed by the realist/objectivists to the Universe as a whole. This makes sense from the standpoint of "Something greater then the Universe as a whole was needed to shape the Universe as a whole. And that he/she/it/them may well be a part of the created Unverse as a parent is a part of the child, but that there is a qualitative difference that allows him/her/them to have characteristics that we wouldn't expect of a material object." This sounds rather slippery too, and oddly enough, even a little more complex, but faith makes it easier.
Which one is right? From a religious viewpoint, the second. And certainly faith makes it easier to believe the oddities found on this level of investigation.
From a scientific viewpoint, it is a toss up. True, Occam's razor says something about taking the simplest hypothesis. And assuming a finite and eternal universe we see seems easier then denying that possibility to what we see, but reattributing it to something we don't see. But it IS slippery, and more then a few scientists have shrugged and turned to faith for certainty in this particular area. Why? Because while Occam's razor is true in general, there is a big problem with the "It just is" arguement.
The problem involves the short question, "Why?"
Why is there a something (the Universe as a whole) as opposed to a nothing? I do not wish to sound a "bottle half empty" guy, but "nothing" seems more natural then something.
This is because an empty room needs no explanation, but a full room implies causes as to why what is where, and when and how. NO, I am not talking about "Intelligent design", just the simple fact that when an object exists, we wonder how it got there, but where nothing exists, we don't need an explanation.
Were there nothing at all, no Universe as a whole, no reality, no nothing, then not only would we not need an explanation as to why, but we wouldn't be there to ask. But there is a something, and while we can say, "It just is", and even be right in one way, it still nags at us for an explanation as to "why something rather then nothing?".
An ancient Hebrew deity, or any deity at all, may seem illogical or even absurd...but any who play with the problem long enough do eventually shrug and think, "Why not?"
Proof of a Creator? No. But perhaps reason to not be quite as quick to dismiss those who find some peace of mind in believing in one.
And the nicest thing about the Christian deity as modernly known is that he seems to leave all the Universal laws in place so causality can be taken as a given for the Known Universe we live in. As for causality in the Universe as a whole...we don't know.
Dean West
Known Universe - The Space/Time continuum usually thought to have been caused by the phenomena refered to as the "Big Bang". It is approximately 15 to 20 billion years old, and approximately 30 to 40 billion light years in diameter...and expanding.
Universe as a whole - That which is everything that exists. All things, all events, all causes. Every existent in existence or ever in existence or that ever will be in existence. The all in all.
From a metaphysical viewpoint, the Known Universe is irrelevent when it comes to the first cause debate. We know the first cause of the Known Universe, or believe we do anyway. We do not know the cause of the first cause.
There are two primary ways of understanding the first cause problem when it comes to the Universe as a whole. The realist/objectivist one says that the Universe as a whole is finite and eternal. And that it did not have a cause, it just is. This makes sense from the standpoint that "The Universe as a whole is that which is everything that exists, and any cause of it is also an existent, therefore a part of the Universe as a whole." This sounds rather slippery, but trust me when I tell you that it is all slippery at this level.
The religious/faith one says that the Universe as a whole may be finite/infinite, eternal/noneternal as a Creator/s sees fit. And that this supreme creator then has the finite and eternal characteristics usually ascribed by the realist/objectivists to the Universe as a whole. This makes sense from the standpoint of "Something greater then the Universe as a whole was needed to shape the Universe as a whole. And that he/she/it/them may well be a part of the created Unverse as a parent is a part of the child, but that there is a qualitative difference that allows him/her/them to have characteristics that we wouldn't expect of a material object." This sounds rather slippery too, and oddly enough, even a little more complex, but faith makes it easier.
Which one is right? From a religious viewpoint, the second. And certainly faith makes it easier to believe the oddities found on this level of investigation.
From a scientific viewpoint, it is a toss up. True, Occam's razor says something about taking the simplest hypothesis. And assuming a finite and eternal universe we see seems easier then denying that possibility to what we see, but reattributing it to something we don't see. But it IS slippery, and more then a few scientists have shrugged and turned to faith for certainty in this particular area. Why? Because while Occam's razor is true in general, there is a big problem with the "It just is" arguement.
The problem involves the short question, "Why?"
Why is there a something (the Universe as a whole) as opposed to a nothing? I do not wish to sound a "bottle half empty" guy, but "nothing" seems more natural then something.
This is because an empty room needs no explanation, but a full room implies causes as to why what is where, and when and how. NO, I am not talking about "Intelligent design", just the simple fact that when an object exists, we wonder how it got there, but where nothing exists, we don't need an explanation.
Were there nothing at all, no Universe as a whole, no reality, no nothing, then not only would we not need an explanation as to why, but we wouldn't be there to ask. But there is a something, and while we can say, "It just is", and even be right in one way, it still nags at us for an explanation as to "why something rather then nothing?".
An ancient Hebrew deity, or any deity at all, may seem illogical or even absurd...but any who play with the problem long enough do eventually shrug and think, "Why not?"
Proof of a Creator? No. But perhaps reason to not be quite as quick to dismiss those who find some peace of mind in believing in one.
And the nicest thing about the Christian deity as modernly known is that he seems to leave all the Universal laws in place so causality can be taken as a given for the Known Universe we live in. As for causality in the Universe as a whole...we don't know.
Dean West
posted by Dean West @ 5:32 AM
2 Comments:
At March 10, 2005 10:02 AM,
oldkayaker said…
Your blog message says, in part,"...We know the first cause of the Known Universe, or believe we do anyway. We do not know the cause of the first cause..."
Don't know about your notion of two universes; but, there is very little doubt with substantial data about the cause of what you call the Known Universe.
For example, the horse nebula and other dusty regions of space where massive qualities of dust are being attracted by gravity to form future suns is a very plausible source for the first cause among others.
There is no need to hedge or leave open a theory and allow it to feed into the "faith" believers.
At March 10, 2005 10:04 AM,
oldkayaker said…
Your blog message says, in part,"...We know the first cause of the Known Universe, or believe we do anyway. We do not know the cause of the first cause..."
Don't know about your notion of two universes; but, there is very little doubt with substantial data about the cause of what you call the Known Universe.
For example, the horse nebula and other dusty regions of space where massive qualities of dust are being attracted by gravity to form future suns is a very plausible source for the first cause among others.
There is no need to hedge or leave open a theory and allow it to feed into the "faith" believers.
<< Home