What's easier to believe, an eternal universe without initial causation or a Creator God who is transcendent?

Question

Since gravity is the fabric of the space-time continuum, the universe has a distinct point of origin. An infinite gravitational singularity that appeared about 13 billion years ago. It is a validated fact that time and matter began then. Some do not except this truth and postulate elegant mathematical equations to describe an eternal universe without a cause. Many would rather believe the universe is a natural construct that has always existed, then to believe in an eternal everlasting God.

Answer 1

<< What's easier to believe, an eternal universe without initial causation or a Creator God who is transcendent?>>

It's probably easier to believe in an eternal universe. The only culture (religion) to come up with the idea of a creation -- i.e. … a starting point for the universe from the POV of existence, is Christianity. Even the Greek philosophers believed in an eternal uncaused universe. So, philosophically, the idea of a starting point for existence is very difficult to get a grasp of if one doesn't have any help. In this case, the Bible creation story (Genesis) pointed philosophers like Thomas Aquinas (and the scholastics of the Middle Ages) to the philosophical idea of a beginning for existence. It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that the universe was created in time and out-of-nothing -- Fourth Lateran council in 1215 (pronounced as an official teaching almost 800 years ago).

The Christian view of a created universe had huge implications for the development of science. Science arose in a Western Christian cultural matrix out of the Middle Ages. Sure, there were a few inventions in other cultures like gunpowder in China, but no real science. By the time of the late 1800's, if any culture had no contact with the West and it's technology, they were still living as they had a 1000 years ago. All of the "great" other cultures, like India, China, Islamic empire, Greeks, Far East, and Africa failed to get science off the ground. One of the fundamental reasons for this was these cultures improper philosophical view of the universe. They viewed the universe as eternal.

Why would this hamper the development of science? Because it is one's philosophy that drives one's science. Even the Greek philosophers like Aristotle, as good as they were in philosophy, were wrong on this fundamental point (an eternal versus a created universe).

Here is how the problem played out for the Greek philosophers and other cultures. Something that exists eternal and uncaused must exist since it has always existed. Secondly, it must exist the way it is since it has always been that way -- it could exist no other way than the way it has always existed. This would be what is called a necessary existence. Something that exists necessarily -- must exist, and it must also exist the way it is since it does not depend on something else for its existence.

The Greek philosophers took the view that the universe was uncaused, necessary, and eternal. If the universe exists this way, then one would be inclined to try and set down some prerequisites (principles) on how the universe exists, and then try and logically unpack the way the universe has to be based on these a priori principles. For example, a triangle necessarily exists a certain way, so one can logically unpack and make deductions on how it exists -- ie. 180 degrees, sin, cos, … A^2 + B^2 = C^2 … and so on. If the universe exists necessarily then one would try and do science like mathematics or through logic -- after all, the universe would have to be the way it is like a triangle is the way it is. Empirical science wouldn't really be important as we would try and simply rationalize or logically deduce how the universe must or should be -- similar to how mathematics is done.

This is what the Greek philosophers tried -- "science by philosophy", and it is one of the fundamental reasons they did not develop science. All attempts to do science by way of logic and reason (with no empirical investigation) have failed.

If the universe is created (contingent -- i.e. not necessary and not necessarily the way it is -- the Christian viewpoint) then one can't just rationalize about how the universe exists -- one has to actually go out and do empirical science to see how it was created. Light could have had a different speed, the charge of an electron could have been different, and a proton could have had a different size, and so on and so forth.

The second problem that hampered the development of science in other cultures is Pantheism. Most religions are pantheistic in nature, so god permeates the universe like some force being part of nature. This Pantheistic view was probably largely driven by the view that the universe is eternal.

This again leads to a problematic view of the universe -- is the moon orbiting the earth because some god is pushing it or willing it around, or, is it orbiting the earth because it follows some natural law that God endowed a created and separate universe with? Remember, for a Christian, God is transcendent to the created universe -- he's not part of it. If the "created" universe doesn't exist, God still exists for a Christian. For pantheists, if you destroy the universe, their gods go with it. If one can't separate the gods from the universe -- what is a natural cause, and what is being caused by the gods, or the "wills" in nature, then it's almost impossible to formulate a correct theory of causes -- which leads to science.

Since the Christian God is transcendent to the universe (not part of it) it was natural for Christians to ask -- if gods are not pushing the moon around, or it isn't willing itself around, what natural created things keep it moving around the earth? This led to the laws of motion and an empirical science where one had to go out and investigate how the universe exists and how creation works. This again was one of the major factors that contributed to science arising in a Christian culture -- the Christian view of the universe is the correct one.

Scientifically we can show our universe has a finite past -- that Christianity was correct about a starting point for the universe. Our sun has to have a finite past or it wouldn't exist the way it does today -- its hydrogen would have been depleted eons ago through nuclear fusion. Same for radioactive isotopes like Uranium 235/238 which have specific half-life's, in order for us to have these isotopes exist today (they decay as we speak) these isotopes have to have a finite past in which they were created -- or they would not exist today. So scientifically we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite past which means a created existence.

There are additional philosophical arguments that show the universe has a caused (created) existence.

Answer 2

The former. Although I think calling the Universe eternal or self caused is a logical fallacy. The Universe in the sense that I'm using the term is everything that is. Time and causation are parts of the Universe. So to ask has the Universe existed forever or asking is it self caused is to take parts of the Universe (Time, Causation) and applying it to the whole. You cant do that. According to set theory - a set can be a subset of itself but a set can never me a member of itself. I don`t agree that the infinite gravitational singularity is a validated fact. The concept of the singularity being infinitely hot, and dense, and small etc. comes from our failure to merge Quantum Mechanics with the General theory of relativity. I also don`t believe in solid matter or perfect vacuums. Both are idealizations. I suggest you read the Scientific worldview for a different take on the Big bang cosmological picture. I personally also don't understand how Hubble's law that all matter is moving away from each other at a speed that is proportional to its distance proves that "Space" itself is expanding. So what if the theory predicted back-round radiation in space - other opposing theories predicted the same thing. I suggest you read the Scientific worldview for a different way at looking at this theory. The postulate that a creator named God magically made everything is a bronze age myth. It all boils down to the God of the gaps argument. We dont know therefore God.

Answer 3

Well what is easier to believe that your watch appeared or that someone made it? The energy always comes from the energetic. Everything made is made by someone. So the elements that make the watch is made by the Supreme Maker of everything (Also known as Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Elohim, Rams, etc.) There is the sun and the sunlight. There must be something making that light emanating from the sun. Actually when one studies the Ancient Vedic wisdom one can understand this vast eternal science and the innumerable Universes. There is also a presiding deity of the sun Vivaswan The King of the sun if you wil. There are residents on the sun whose body is mostly made of the element fire. Where on earth we are a combination of earth, water fire, air and ether. The Sun planet is a heavenly planet, which has much opulence there. But no one can know this unless they read the Vedas, which came with the material creation by God named above. God lives beyond this material creation yet He expands Himself everywhere through His energies here. There are only two things God and Gods energies. So I accept the Transcendent Eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead. (The Supreme Energetic)

Answer 4

Definitely eternal universe without initial causation.

Transcendent God just cannot be proven no matter how anyone wants to prove it because it is supernatural.

To me, eternal universe is much easier to comprehend. I cannot say it is proven. But I can say that it is much simpler and it connects to the natural laws of Physics.

And as pointed out earlier, "all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best" [Occam's Razor].

I think most people just cannot grasp the concept that 'occurrences of thoughts are natural phenomenon in the eternal universe'. Humans are so trapped in the paradigm that 'intelligence is required to initiate complex systems'. And thoughts are complex systems. That's why humans invented the concept of Transcendent God. It is the easiest theory for the thinking paradigm. But it is an illusion.

Answer 5

It is easier to believe a God created everything because this is so simple to explain. Creating a God to explain everything is much easier than to find the scientific knowledge in nature and the existence around us.

This is why humans have always believed everything is created by a creator. Once you accept that a God created all things and nothing then there is no need to seek any truth. Just have faith that you decision to believe the creator is real.

That solve your problem of who created this or that universe or more universe or how one define the universe.

Answer 6

Thats an easy one 'an eternal universe without initial causation'. Because 'a Creator God who is transcendent' would also need an initial causation so why add yet another layer to the explanation. Use Ocham's Razer. Better still - the words 'I do not know' are much more accurate.

Answer 7

"Causes" imply "effects." Existence is not an "effect." It is the given, that which exists and which can not ever not exist. It cannot have been created by a creator, nor by natural laws. It is the creator of those natural laws. Natural laws belong to existence, not the other way around.

Answer 8

validated fact! listen to you, you're hilarious!

i would say that we KNOW less about the external universe than we do about the internal universe.

first of all, "god" may be called all sorts of things by us humans, but face it, what use could such a diety have for something so inane and limited as a name?

furthermore, what makes you think we know anything about the way things really are? i think the force or entity called "god" is infinitely more complicated and vast than is possible for us to comprehend.

stop trying to wrap your head around something that is far bigger than it. enjoy life, learn all that you can, cuz life gets a lot better after death.

(and sure by my own logic, i don't know anything either, but at least i don't delude myself with "facts")

Answer 9

Since none of this is knowable, it is a fool's errand to catalogue which is more or less aesthetically appealing to us.