muechlemorder (muechlemorder) wrote in theism,

what if

Something is a continuing cause of the universe if and only if it causes each state of the universe. Something is an originating cause of the universe if and only if it causes the earliest state of the universe. If time is continuous, "the earliest state" may refer to an instantaneous state or (if the universe's history is half-open in the earlier direction) to a temporally extended state of some given length.

If big bang cosmology is true, the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago with the big bang. The big bang is the earliest state of the universe; "the big bang" may be taken to refer to a singularity that constitutes the first instantaneous state of the universe or (if one "cuts out" the singularity) to an explosion that constitutes the first half-open state of some brief length, e.g. the Planck length, 10-43second. In my discussion, I shall treat the big bang as a logically possible example of an earliest state of the universe.

Considerations of agent causality are not germane to our discussion; our topic is the cause of the universe's beginning to exist, not the cause of God's act of willing that the universe begin to exist. We are not examining the relation between God (the agent) and his act of willing (the effect), but the relation between his act of willing (an event) and the beginning of the universe (another event). Thus, definitions of agent causality are irrelevant to our arguments; we are interested only in definitions of event causality, where the cause and effect are both events.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
god has no relevance in the equation
once you figure the equation...god's can be put into the second one and forth be concluded an illogical variant


November 10 2005, 14:08:48 UTC 11 years ago

I hate when philosophers try to be scientists. You can ramble on all you like, but no one with an actual degree in a real, physical science is going to take this seriously.
I'm trully sorry that you are inepted to comprehend my concepts.

Deleted comment

I hate it when people don't realize the importance of fusing different areas of thought together to help the human race better understand themselves and this world. :(
Science is for the benefit of Human Kind. It has to be used intelligently to aid one's philosophy according to me. Not only philosophers, none should neglect the advancement of science and should consider them into their thesis. Similarly all are allowed to have their own philosophy, in fact personal philosophy is what drives each human, inspires him.
What is the question?

I would deny that God had an "act" of willing the universe to begin existing separate from his general act of willing the universe to exist. I believe that from God's perspective the whole of space time lies before him in an eternal instant. So I would describe God, in your language, as the continuing but not originating cause of the universe.

I would also suggest that identifying "earliest time" with some bit of a half open temporality is just artificial. The fact is that such a universe has no earliest time and therefore cannot sensibly be ascribed an originating cause. I also think you overlook the common expectation of quantum cosmologists that time as we understand it ceases to apply in the Very Early Universe.

Deleted comment

I in fact wrote an essay on Berkeley and Augustine as part of my MPhil. Although I think I have more often been accused of being Augustinian.
If you can not tell me when and how time was created how can you tell when it didnt exist.
Clearly there was no "when it didn't exist", since "when" is temporal word.
"God" created time therfor there was a "time" it didn't exist.
I think not. There was an ontologically prior state, but not a temporally prior state. It may help to say "God creates time" rather than "God created time", although the truth is that our language is so essentially temporal that it struggles to express the actions of an eternal being.


November 24 2005, 04:57:27 UTC 11 years ago

This argument would be more interesting had you not blatently plagerized it from Quentin Smith (, part 2 of this webpage.