Asking "What caused God" is special pleading.

[Royston]

I'm saying, as is everyone else, that the Big Bang is an event. An event needs a cause.

 

Not necessarily, events can be acausal, they just violate relativity i.e [math]\Delta{s}^2 > 0[/math] (see Minkowski diagrams), specifically the speed of light. Pre Big Bang models needn't be relativistic, they're not part of our Universe. Besides, as a similar example, even thermodynamics can be violated for a short time, as I'm sure you well know i.e there is leeway even with the most robust of physical laws.

 

Surely you're making assertions about pre BB conditions ?

[Sisyphus]

An event needs a cause.

 

Why?

[Mr Skeptic]

Why?

 

It's the Law of Cause and Effect. It has never been shown to be false. And from a philosophy of science point of view, it is pretty much what science is about (finding causes for effects, that is).

 

I'm sure you know what it's called when someone says a particular law doesn't apply to a subset of the cases without giving a reason why.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What causes random processes, like radioactive decay?

 

I mean, you can explain the instability in the nuclei and all the physics details, but the precise matter of when the nucleus decides to decay is rather random. Does it have a cause?

[Sisyphus]

It's the Law of Cause and Effect. It has never been shown to be false. And from a philosophy of science point of view, it is pretty much what science is about (finding causes for effects, that is).

 

I'm sure you know what it's called when someone says a particular law doesn't apply to a subset of the cases without giving a reason why.

 

As Capn says, what about random events? And what actually is a cause, exactly? It's an event to the pastward of the caused event, specifically of a type consistently observed in a similar spacetime relationship to similar caused events. Two rocks collide -> loud noise. Adding intermediate steps (electrons repel, concussive waves expand, etc.) makes it even more consistent, but the relationship is the same: merely a consistent pattern of proximity.

 

So why is that logically necessary? (Corollary: is "everything must have an effect" a law?) Perhaps you "always" see the similar pastward event because, in our window of observation, there is always a past. Much like looking at the middle of a diamond, there is always another carbon atom to the left, linked "inextricably." Until there isn't. Perhaps the earliest event in the universe is analogous to the leftmost carbon atom in the diamond.

[Mr Skeptic]

What causes random processes, like radioactive decay?

 

And if I say unknown causes? We've always had unknown causes, so why should these be an exception?

 

Is it even possible to show that something has no cause, if it in fact doesn't? How could one tell?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So then is the hypothesis that everything has a cause unfalsifiable, if you can postulate unknown causes?

 

That makes it meaningless.

[Mr Skeptic]

So why is that logically necessary? (Corollary: is "everything must have an effect" a law?)

 

No. Numbers for example do not have an effect.

 

Perhaps you "always" see the similar pastward event because, in our window of observation, there is always a past. Much like looking at the middle of a diamond, there is always another carbon atom to the left, linked "inextricably." Until there isn't. Perhaps the earliest event in the universe is analogous to the leftmost carbon atom in the diamond.

 

Bah, it is simple enough to show that there need not be a carbon atom specifically, because carbon's chemical properties don't require there to be another carbon atom. It is simple enough to show that it cannot extend forever, as the diamond would crush itself under its own weight. You don't need to get to the edge to realize that the pattern need not continue. In fact since the pattern is not based on a law of physics but rather on a particular organization of material, there is no reason to expect it to continue.

 

We know space can curve onto itself to form loops. We know space could extend forever. We know there is no edge to space, or at the least we are very sure there is not because we would be unable to describe it.

 

Why treat time any different? Why should there be a start to time, and is that even possible?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So then is the hypothesis that everything has a cause unfalsifiable, if you can postulate unknown causes?

 

That makes it meaningless.

 

Did I ever say it was unfalsifiable?

 

We can prove there are unknown causes. Every single scientific statement was once unknown. All we have ever seen shows us scientists finding the causes to previously unexplainable events.

 

Now you say there is an uncaused event somewhere. That's nice, so as we scientists are so fond of saying, "Put up or shut up." Why should anyone believe in a uncaused events when all we have seen are unknown causes? Show me an uncaused event. Or show that it is even possible to have uncaused events.

 

Go ahead, falsify it. It only takes one example.

 

Quantum mechanics has shown that some things are unknowable. What if there are some unknowable causes? Then the idea that there are uncaused events would definitely be unfalsifiable.

 

In any case, it is utterly pointless to say that there are uncaused events if it cannot be shown to be true. Why not just say "God did it" and give up as is traditional? Why change it to "Nothing did it but we can't prove that" and give up? Makes no sense, and has no benefit.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

No. Numbers for example do not have an effect.

 

Ok, for "events," then, as that is what we're talking about.

 

Bah, it is simple enough to show that there need not be a carbon atom specifically, because carbon's chemical properties don't require there to be another carbon atom. It is simple enough to show that it cannot extend forever, as the diamond would crush itself under its own weight. You don't need to get to the edge to realize that the pattern need not continue. In fact since the pattern is not based on a law of physics but rather on a particular organization of material, there is no reason to expect it to continue.

 

Ok, but how do we know what carbon's chemical properties are? How do you know what a law of physics is? By observing consistent behaviors in comparable circumstances. But if your entire history of observation is limited to within the bounds of the diamond, then "there is always another carbon atom" is as consistent an observation as any physical law. I think the analogy still holds.

 

We know space can curve onto itself to form loops. We know space could extend forever. We know there is no edge to space, or at the least we are very sure there is not because we would be unable to describe it.

 

But we know that because it isn't consistent any theory that fits our observations, not because we're unable to imagine or describe it.

 

Why treat time any different? Why should there be a start to time, and is that even possible?

 

I don't know why there should be, or what that would mean. I'm just saying there is no logical contradiction in it, and that we don't have a sufficient perspective to rule it out.

 

Now you say there is an uncaused event somewhere. That's nice, so as we scientists are so fond of saying, "Put up or shut up." Why should anyone believe in a uncaused events when all we have seen are unknown causes? Show me an uncaused event. Or show that it is even possible to have uncaused events.

 

Go ahead, falsify it. It only takes one example.

 

Quantum mechanics has shown that some things are unknowable. What if there are some unknowable causes? Then the idea that there are uncaused events would definitely be unfalsifiable.

 

In any case, it is utterly pointless to say that there are uncaused events if it cannot be shown to be true. Why not just say "God did it" and give up as is traditional? Why change it to "Nothing did it but we can't prove that" and give up? Makes no sense, and has no benefit.

 

I'm pretty sure Bell's Theorem rules out the possibility that hidden variables (unknown causes) can account for our observations. Falsified?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm pretty sure Bell's Theorem rules out the possibility that hidden variables (unknown causes) can account for our observations. Falsified?

 

Nope, it rules out local realism. In any case, Bell's Inequality depends entirely on the Law of Cause and Effect, as otherwise there would be no surprise for anything measured. The surprise is that a measurement on one particle appears to have an instantaneous effect on another particle, whereas such things were "supposed" to only have effects that propagate at the speed of light. A previous explanation, that some unseen variable was causing this to happen, would have not required this faster than light spooky action at a distance.

 

It cannot be used to communicate however.

 

We have evidence that in certain circumstances "faster than light" travel may be possible according to the laws of physics. I've never seen any evidence for something being uncaused.

[Sayonara]

What causes random processes, like radioactive decay?

 

I mean, you can explain the instability in the nuclei and all the physics details, but the precise matter of when the nucleus decides to decay is rather random. Does it have a cause?

 

In any given specific scenario, is "when it happens" always necessarily linked to "why it happens"? Radioactive decay is certainly an interesting one.

[Mr Skeptic]

In any given specific scenario, is "when it happens" always necessarily linked to "why it happens"? Radioactive decay is certainly an interesting one.

 

Well, when something happens is related to how it happens, which a scientific theory should try to explain. In any case, every radioactive atom was formed from more stable elements, and it just took a while to decay. Our solar system to this day contains unstable orbits, leading to occasional collisions or the lobbing of bits of rock out of our solar system entirely. Though these are classical systems, you likewise can't point and say "this is what caused the collision" as really it is a long, continuous process. Nor for that matter can you say what will happen if it is sufficiently far into the future. It is also deterministically chaotic, in that we cannot put a formula to it despite it being deterministic, and it is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. We can approximate this with computer simulations, but eventually the simulation loses accuracy, and even if not, the tiniest of uncertainties in initial measurements will throw off predictions.

 

Three bodies interacting via inverse square law are the minimum to have chaos (although there are solutions for a very few initial conditions). It's called the "three body problem" or the "many body problem".

 

Another aspect is that we can have randomness yet maintain cause and effect. Measuring a quantum state will cause the wavefunction to collapse, but there is currently no way to say what individual measurements will say (and according to many quantum theorists, never will be).

[mooeypoo]

We're moving a bit out of subject here. The question in the subject specifies special pleading. If you think that *all* events require a cause, without exception, that it's NOT special pleading (by definition).

 

The problem is when people specify that ALL EVENTS require a cause *EXCEPT A SINGLE ONE*, usually refering to God. What that happens, that's special pleading. By definition.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

The problem is when people specify that ALL EVENTS require a cause *EXCEPT A SINGLE ONE*, usually refering to God. What that happens, that's special pleading. By definition.

 

When and where did God happen?

[mooeypoo]

When and where did God happen?

I don't understand the point of the question. Or the question itself, for that matter. What?

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't understand the point of the question. Or the question itself, for that matter. What?

 

If God didn't "happen", then I don't see how you can call that an event. If you can't call that an event, then you can't claim the law of cause and effect requires a cause to a non-event.

[mooeypoo]

If God didn't "happen", then I don't see how you can call that an event. If you can't call that an event, then you can't claim the law of cause and effect requires a cause to a non-event.

Mr Skeptic, I don't plead God. Ever. Therefore, I don't plead it to be outside the realms of science, outside reality, outside the rules of everything else, and requiring somtehing all others do.

 

I don't have a problem with claiming that everything must have a cause. Or that everything might not have a cause, I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards the second, but I don't quite care -- I don't make arguments where it's crucial that one item/object/instance/argument/object/event/thing/it/who/what/where/why/booboo must exist *separately* than the rest of everything.

 

I don't know how to answer that question. I don't claim God's existence is special pleading, I'm stating that when people claim that everything must have a cause except god, they are special pleading.

 

I seriously don't see what the problem is.

 

IF your argument is that everything must have a cause, THEN you cannot set God outside of that argument.

 

IF your argument is that not everything must have a cause, THEN your argument that God can exist without a cause is not special pleading, because it's not true "just for God".

 

Where is the problem?

 

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

And yet, the law of cause and effect requires only events to have causes, not everything. Attempting to apply the law of cause and effect to a particular non-event (eg God) while not for other non-events (eg numbers), is by definition special pleading.

 

Not everything is an event. How many times must I say so?

[Sisyphus]

 

Not everything is an event. How many times must I say so?

 

But "God creating the universe" would be an event, no?

[Mr Skeptic]

But "God creating the universe" would be an event, no?

 

Correct. Asking what caused God to cause the universe is perfectly valid, as it applies law of cause and effect to an event.

[Sisyphus]

Correct. Asking what caused God to cause the universe is perfectly valid, as it applies law of cause and effect to an event.

 

So isn't that implicitly what is meant by "what caused God," if "God" is simply defined as "that which caused the universe?"

[Mr Skeptic]

So isn't that implicitly what is meant by "what caused God," if "God" is simply defined as "that which caused the universe?"

 

Nope, when explicitly asked most people who ask that question are, in fact, asking for a cause for God himself.

[Sisyphus]

But that's the same thing, as per how "God" is being used. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense as an answer to "what caused the (beginning of the) universe?"

[Mr Skeptic]

Not really, an infinite chain of cause and effect still fulfills the law of cause and effect. Rather like Hilbert's Hotel.

 

They might instead claim that God has free will so it doesn't apply, which would be either special pleading or fishy definitions. Rather like some quantum folks say cause and effect doesn't apply to certain quantum things, which seems just as fishy except with "nothing" or "chance" instead of "God". These seem equally valid to me (rather equally invalid).

[Sisyphus]

But it's not an infinite chain of cause and effect being invoked. The argument goes:

 

A: Everything needs a prior cause, including the beginning of the universe. Let's call that cause "God."

B: So what caused God to start the universe?

A: ::special pleading::

 

So if you hold to the axiom that everything needs a prior cause, then "god did it" (or any kind of first cause) isn't a valid answer. And if you don't hold to that axiom, then it's unnecessary.