If there was ever a time when nothing existed then there would be nothing still, because nothing has no potential to become something. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And yet there is something, so we know there has never been a time when nothing existed. Something has always existed. What is that something?
Could the universe be eternal? No, as evidenced by the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago.
If the universe has not always existed, what has? Given the maxims that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so? Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind.
Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe. An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is.
Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed. He is a necessary being, who contains within Himself the sufficient cause for His own existence, as well as the existence of everything else.
Thinking to Believe 
March 14, 2023 at 1:42 pm
“Out of nothing, nothing comes”
We can’t conclude that. For all we know, nothingness itself may be unstable and always produces something. But since we have exactly zero examples of absolute nothingness, we can’t make any credible claims about it.
Interestingly, if “out of nothing, nothing comes” is true, then God can’t have created the universe. After all, Christianity teaches that God created the universe out of nothing: “Creation ex nihilo.”
“Could the universe be eternal? No, as evidenced by the thermodynamic properties of the universe.”
Our LOCAL universe started 13.77 billion years ago, but that doesn’t mean that’s the beginning of existence. Successful theories and hypotheses in physics predict there may be upwards of an infinite number of universes, caused by quantum fluctuations.
“If the universe has not always existed, what has?”
If there is anything “eternal,” it could be the quantum realm—something we already know exists within our local universe. But even the term “eternal” may be meaningless if time began with the birth of our universe.
“Given the maxims that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so?
“Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind.”
We can reject the concept of an embodied mind because the very definition of a mind is something capable of thinking. But thinking is defined as a change in a mind over time. Furthermore, ALL the evidence we have indicates minds are an emergent property of matter. Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial mind would be inert, incapable of thought and incapable of taking action.
“Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe.”
The universe may appear ordered, but if this is only one of an infinite number of universes, as I already mentioned may very well be possible, then every possible arrangement of universes would likely exist, and we just happen to be in one of the ones with the properties of this universe. A different universe could have different parameters and possess life quite different from our own. But since we have only this one universe to study (at least so far), we cannot come to any conclusion. You can’t make a statistical analysis with a set of one.
But we can say that our universe is extremely hostile to supporting life. Well over 99.9999999% of it is deadly to life as we know it. Our universe is far, far better designed for creating black holes.
“An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is.”
Actualky, quantum mechanics does a better job, since we already know the quantum realm exists. We don’t know WHY it exists, but you don’t solve a mystery by appealing to a greater mystery. That’s a violation of Occam’s Razor. After all, appealing to God only raises the question why God would exist, thus solving nothing.
So I don’t think the intelligent designer argument works on pretty much any level.
LikeLike
March 14, 2023 at 11:03 pm
Noted agnostic, Joe Schmid, has offered substantive observations about quantum mechanics and the causal principle. Though what he writes has been elucidated by others, it is interesting to see a non-theologian philosopher recognize the issues underlying the debate:
Quantum Mechanics Contra the Causal Principle?
LikeLike
March 14, 2023 at 11:35 pm
A good, basic approach from an apologetics perspective, Jason. Its drawback is it does not establish monotheism. It is possible under this argument that there are myriad “disembodied” minds who coordinated their efforts to produce the universe.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 5:39 am
“Noted agnostic, Joe Schmid, has offered substantive observations about quantum mechanics and the causal principle.”
If I understand his point correctly, it’s that because it may be possible that there is a cause for radioactive decay and the appearance of quantum particles, there is the possibility that Aquinas’ claim hasn’t been refuted. But I don’t think that’s the most important point here.
Theists have long taken causality as a given, adding that because extrapolating causality leads to an infinite regress, there must be a first cause, which they believe is God. But observations like the randomness of radioactive decay and particle manifestation have no EVIDENT cause, meaning it may well be that they don’t have a cause. That means we CANNOT take causality as a given. I’m not saying there is no first cause, but these observations mean that we cannot conclude there was a “first mover” that was God, and thus Aquinas is wrong about that.
So it’s both conceivable and reasonable to conclude that our universe may be the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. And the evidence—so far—supports it. There’s no need to add the unnecessary complication of positing a deity.
Also, leaving the door open to the possibility of a god is not evidence in support of theism. At best it is compatible with theism…but compatible is almost meaningless on its own, since the same argument is compatible with universe-creating aliens from the 12th dimension. Or giant, flying, invisible, pink, magical, universe-creating unicorns. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or any number of other explanations. Finding a way to make something compatible is (usually) trivial. You still have to have actual credible evidence FOR a god to conclude theism, and to do that there must be at least SOME testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim false. Without that, arguments won’t take you very far.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 8:47 am
Not surprisingly, Derek misses the point.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 9:26 am
Did I? If so, please explain how I missed the point and why my points are at fault.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 12:16 pm
Derek writes:
You have got to be kidding. I’ve told you I won’t venture down that road again. Schmid gets it, you don’t. I’m not wasting my time arguing with you.
LikeLike
March 19, 2023 at 9:08 am
“You have got to be kidding. I’ve told you I won’t venture down that road again. Schmid gets it, you don’t. I’m not wasting my time arguing with you.”
Yeah, I knew you’d deflect if I called your bluff. 😉
LikeLike
March 20, 2023 at 10:30 pm
Dingbat writes:
For anybody who doesn’t already know, I’ve gone around with Derek enough times to show that it’s a waste of time debating him. He pretends to know things he’s extremely ignorant of. He digs in his heels and refuses to acknowledge very OBVIOUS errors. He forgets what he’s arguing and attacks positions he’s defended in the same thread. He criticizes material he hasn’t even read. And he attacks you personally when you call him on his errors.
Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself:
Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause
Bye Bye Roe
Tempted to works righteousness
With respect to quantum mechanics, the linked column in Post 2 above very clearly explains why an appeal to it cannot effectively undermine the causal principle as articulated by Aristotle and Aquinas. But since Dingbat can’t admit an obvious error (else he’d have to admit that he doesn’t know enough about QM to offer an opinion about it), he attempted to reframe the matter and goad me into another myriad-post “debate.” After the above time wasters, I’m simply not interested. Anybody with a touch of sanity will be able to see why by perusing the links here.
Derek is a sad fella who likes to laugh at people without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
March 24, 2023 at 2:37 am
Why do you always do this, Scalia? Whenever you are backed into a corner, proven wrong, or try to defend the indefensible, instead of simply addressing the claim or admitting your mistake, you desperately try to deflect, bluff or attack a person’s character.
Your last post is a perfect example, where instead of just answering the question you spent far more time writing up what amounts to nothing more than a big ad hominem.
Perhaps you think this antagonistic style of debate is impressive, but I assure you it is not. It only demeans you and makes you look thin-skinned, stubborn and mean-spirited. Refusing to engage with mature discourse just because someone makes a good argument and isn’t intimidated by your aggressiveness only serves to undermine your arguments.
I’ve offered to restart afresh, argue in good faith and admit to any mistakes, but you can’t even do that. Why not? Do you feel that you must win your arguments at any cost? If so, then there really is no point in debating with you, is there? That’s disappointing since, unlike Paul, you sometimes you make arguments I find interesting, even if I disagree with them.
LikeLike
March 24, 2023 at 2:42 pm
Just knock it off, Derek. I simply offered proof that it’s a waste of time to argue with you. If you really believe otherwise, then you’d be more than happy to leave the links to speak for themselves. It’s quite obvious from your ridiculous post that you know they hang you.
I’ve twice given in against my better judgment to debate you again, and both times demonstrated how silly an enterprise that was (for all the reasons I stated in Post 9). After three times, there’s no “restart afresh” with you. Ain’t gonna happen, Bub.
And by the way, you wouldn’t have gotten that kind of reply from me had you not popped off about my apparent “bluff.” I don’t bluff about anything. If I thought for two seconds you’d argue in good faith, I wouldn’t mind showing you how off you are on Schmid’s column. But if a known skeptic like Schmid and other skeptics can see the persuasiveness of his claims, your inability to see it (not really, you’re typically doubling down on stupid because you can’t admit a fundamental error) indicates a mind that’s got more issues than I can fix.
So, buzz off, Bozo. Schmid’s link is for honest readers of this blog who are interested in facts, not atheist propaganda.
LikeLike
March 26, 2023 at 10:17 am
“And by the way, you wouldn’t have gotten that kind of reply from me had you not popped off about my apparent “bluff.” I don’t bluff about anything.“
If that were true, you would have simply pointed out how I missed the point. That would have been FAR more effective than to go on an ad hominem rant to try and deflect. And since you fancy yourself a philosopher, I’m pretty certain you know that. You’re smart enough to know that screams “I’m bluffing!”
“So, buzz off, Bozo. Schmid’s link is for honest readers of this blog who are interested in facts, not atheist propaganda.”
Propaganda? Oh, the irony! If you had reasonable evidence to answer my questions or counter my claims, you would provide them. Just look at your responses over the years and you can see that YOU are the one who keeps turning this into personal attacks on the other person. The person who has the evidence on his side never needs to resort to personal attacks.
Notice how I am never the one to initiate an attack. I provide my evidence. You call it “atheist propaganda,” but if it were propaganda it would be easy for you to refute my claims. Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn’t mean I have it in for you, something you don’t seem to have learned. What I’m looking for is reasonable answers to my questions or counters to my claims. If those answers or counters are weak, I’m not afraid to call them out and explain why…but I don’t do so as an attack. And I am certain not interested in propaganda, either atheist or theist.
I thought the point of the comment section of this blog is to discuss and argue theistic concepts, dogma and differences in opinion on the topic of the post. The proper response to something you disagree with is not to attack, because you can only lose. The proper response is to provide a good counter argument with appropriate evidence. if you aren’t capable of doing that, why are you even here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 26, 2023 at 2:40 pm
Dingbat writes:
Were this the first time we’ve interacted, you would of course be correct. Since this isn’t the first time, you’re insane. The record speaks for itself. I don’t have to deflect. Anybody who reads Schmid’s column and comes away from it with the take that you did is delusional or an arrant liar. I’m perfectly happy to allow Schmid to speak for himself and for others to draw their own conclusions.
As I said (what is this, the third time now?), the links above speak for themselves.
And I’ve done that plenty of times, including with losers like yourself. Arguing with you is a waste of time for all the reasons I state above. Look at you now. We’re arguing over why I won’t argue with you. Just drop it. If another atheist comes here and wants to argue QM in good faith, I’d be more than happy to accommodate him. I don’t waste time on dingbat liars.
LikeLike
March 29, 2023 at 5:04 am
“Anybody who reads Schmid’s column and comes away from it with the take that you did is delusional or an arrant liar.”
THIS from the guy who has claimed at least THREE TIMES that he will not engage with me, only to respond each time? And somehow I’M the liar? Oh come on, Scalia, show some self-awareness. Is this why it’s so easy to manipulate you?
“We’re arguing over why I won’t argue with you.”
Yup. The difference is, I’m only interested in arguing about theistic and atheistic points, not attacking someone over differences in opinion. But it’s clear to anyone reading these columns that people like you, Paul and Elaine are contributing to Christianity’s bad name. Don’t you remember the “turn the other cheek” lesson from your own Bible?
I’m always interested in understanding how religious people reconcile belief in their religions with contradictions in scientific evidence and morality. And when I see cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, cherry-picking, arguments from ignorance, and all the rest of the logical fallacies, I’m going to point them out—and I expect no less treatment from my opponents.
But when people disagree with you, you apparently can’t handle it and resort to name-calling…and arguing about arguing. Well, if you aren’t capable of arguing in good faith (so to speak!), I’m not interested in arguing with you either. So I’m done with you (at least on this topic). Unlike you, I keep my word. Bye.
LikeLike
March 29, 2023 at 8:21 am
Again, I’m perfectly content to let the links speak for themselves. In them, any objective reader will see that Derek is an arrant liar, a person who comments on items he hasn’t even read, who will adamantly resist acknowledging very clear errors of fact and logic, will argue against the very point he was making, and who will get personal when pressed on his errors.
Not once, contra the liar, has he ever backed me into a corner or proved me wrong, except for my conflating two facts (see Roe above) which I immediately acknowledged (contrary to Derek who tries to lie his way out of the noose he wrapped around his neck).
Notice, my first post here contains no direct criticism of Derek. I simply offered a very relevant column by an agnostic philosopher who concludes that the causal principle is not undermined by an appeal to QM (albeit, he questions the principle on other grounds). Derek knows that I will not debate him because I’ve told him that previously. This thread, along with others on this site, prove how ridiculous it is to engage him. If he were a sane person, he would have simply said, “Scalia, al contraire, the links you provide prove just the opposite, and I’m as content as you to allow them to speak for themselves. Since you’ve made it clear that you won’t debate me, that’s no skin off my nose. I stand by my earlier comments.” That’s it! He could have had the last say (I would not have replied to that), and nothing further would have come from it. But, of course, Derek cannot abide disagreement. The proof that he gets personal is in this thread when he accused me of deflection. Anybody who knows anything about my history on this site knows that I have PLENTY to say on various topics. And my debating deportment is always respectful until I discover that a person isn’t arguing in good faith. Derek is just that kind of person. He doesn’t argue in good faith. He’s an atheist ideologue who’s only interested in promoting himself and his agenda. That’s why he digs in his heels when OBVIOUS errors are pointed out (even lying to save face — see the Roe thread).
Buzz off, Derek. You’re a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
March 29, 2023 at 5:45 pm
Scalia ,
I’m a bit of a lurker here, but just wanted you to know I noticed the same thing. I don’t say this to pile onto Derek , but it was obvious that he didn’t either read the link you provided or was being completely disingenuous. If he read the whole thing and isnt being disingenuous, then it went right over his head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 29, 2023 at 10:07 pm
Hi, Josh. You’re not the only person who’s noticed that about Derek, and it’s not limited to Schmid’s column. He does that repeatedly. He’s educated enough to flummox the average Christian, but his arguments are so bad, it’s not at all difficult for an average apologist to take them down. If he weren’t such an ideologue, he could actually grow as a debater. But since he’s incapable of admitting a positional error, and since he continues to pop off about things he doesn’t know anything about, he’ll remain an amateur.
Look at all the posts on why I won’t debate him! If we’re into 16 posts wrangling over why I won’t debate him, how long will another fruitless go-around be? If I thought it would do any good, I’d certainly dive in. Everybody who knows me on this site will testify that I won’t back away from a good-faith debate (as shown by my previous attempts with Derek, excepting the Roe debate because it was clear from the beginning he was lying). But I will definitely stay away from dishonest ideologues.
Yes, he’s being completely disingenuous about the link. Schmid’s a careful writer, and even if I were to venture into another debate (I will not), I would simply quote from the link. It says all there needs to be said.
Look for Derek to try to goad YOU into a debate. He’ll cajole you any way he can, and if he’s not successful, he’ll accuse you of cowardice, deflection or some other malady in order to prop up his inflated ego. Don’t take the bait. He’s not interested in facts (as shown by his belly-flop over Schmid).
LikeLike
March 30, 2023 at 3:40 am
“I don’t say this to pile onto Derek , but it was obvious that he didn’t either read the link you provided or was being completely disingenuous. If he read the whole thing and isnt being disingenuous, then it went right over his head.”
Oh good! Someone else thinks I missed the point of the article, so perhaps you can explain how I did so (instead of doing what Scalia did, which was to argue with me over multiple posts about how he refuses to argue with me! /SMH). Here’s what I said in summarizing the article:
“If I understand his point correctly, it’s that because it may be possible that there is a cause for radioactive decay and the appearance of quantum particles, there is the possibility that Aquinas’ claim hasn’t been refuted.”
I followed that up with a few of the problems with that claim, including that because we lack any evident cause for these events, we cannot claim with any certainty that there is one, and thus Aquinas’ claim cannot be validated. I also noted that there is no testable prediction that provides evidence for the existence of God.
I’ve read the article again and come away with the same observations. So, Josh, if you would please elucidate me on how I’ve completely missed the point of the article, I would greatly appreciate it.
LikeLike
March 30, 2023 at 9:18 am
Dumbo writes:
It wouldn’t have gone on multiple posts if you hadn’t accused me of deflection. And I won’t sit here and allow your falsehoods about me to go without a reply. I can prove what I say and I’ve done so by providing evidence. You just shoot your mouth off because you can’t back your claims. There’s a world of difference between that and launching into another debate on a topic you’re pretending not to understand. Your mistake here is just as obvious as your errors in the Roe, Universe and Works threads. It’s pointless to argue with a dishonest person, and that dishonest person is you, Derek.
You’re a buffoon who likes to laugh at others without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike