Simultaneous causes.

[Silvertusk]

Hi All.

I was reading some transcripts of debates Willam Lane Craig has had and I came across something that Quentin Smith was on about - the idea of Simultaneous causes allowed the universe to cause itself

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5277

As far as I can see this idea talks about all these causes happening simultaneously at t0 (which is a timeless state of the Universe) that each are causely prior to each other but not chronologically prior. For instance...

... -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ......

Each number represents a causual agent that causes the number after it. On this number scale the numbers go from left to right indefinately or to infinity. What this is essentially say is that since this is all on time 0 (t0) then there is nothing outside the universe that causes the universe. All parts of the initial universe are caused by other parts of the initial universe. The questions I would ask are

1) Is this as ludicrous as it sounds?
2) Is this an example of an actual infinite - therefore can't really exist?
3) Is there actually any support for this theory?

Any help in this area?

God Bless

SIlvertusk.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Sounds like the very definition of circular reasoning. If a -> b -> c -> a, which one of those propositions was first? All of them at the same time? Then isn't that make it exponentially more difficult to have all of these propositions happen at the same time? And what happens if there were an infinite number of causes?

It sounds like metaphysical word play... but even the conclusion doesn't make any sense.

[Maytan]

So the argument is, the universe came into existence via an infinite number of causes that happened in the past?

And the idea of a non-caused, all-powerful being is silly?

[jlay]

Anything but God!!!!

[Silvertusk]

So the argument is, the universe came into existence via an infinite number of causes that happened in the past?

And the idea of a non-caused, all-powerful being is silly?

I dont think that is what he was saying - What he was sayin is that the universe right at the beginning was in a timeless state and all the parts and properties of the Universe were caused simultaneously in that timeless state by other causes that were casually prior to them. This then goes on into potentially infinity. Therefore there is no temporal infinte regression and also no outside agent that caused the universe in the first place - but it caused itself. Then at some point time kicked in and then the causes became temporal - but by that time the universed had already started and had been "caused".

Silvertusk.

[Seraph]

I don't think very many other than Quentin Smith himself would take that theory seriously. It seems like something that could only exist on paper. If t0 represents a state of timelessness, how could there be events leading up to it?

Though why wouldn't an actual infinite be able to exist? Isn't God an actual infinite, having always existed and continuing to exist for eternity?

[Maytan]

So the argument is, the universe came into existence via an infinite number of causes that happened in the past?

And the idea of a non-caused, all-powerful being is silly?

I dont think that is what he was saying - What he was sayin is that the universe right at the beginning was in a timeless state and all the parts and properties of the Universe were caused simultaneously in that timeless state by other causes that were casually prior to them. This then goes on into potentially infinity. Therefore there is no temporal infinte regression and also no outside agent that caused the universe in the first place - but it caused itself. Then at some point time kicked in and then the causes became temporal - but by that time the universed had already started and had been "caused".

Silvertusk.

Ah, alright. I think I understand it better.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Still doesn't make any sense to me. What caused the causes outside of time? How can a cause cause itself?

[Silvertusk]

I don't think very many other than Quentin Smith himself would take that theory seriously. It seems like something that could only exist on paper. If t0 represents a state of timelessness, how could there be events leading up to it?

Though why wouldn't an actual infinite be able to exist? Isn't God an actual infinite, having always existed and continuing to exist for eternity?

The point is that there are no events leading chronologically up to it -just casually prior to it. All happening in the timeless state of the universe at the beginning - so there is no time element here.

And yes God is the only example of an actual infinite so I stand corrected.



Disclaimer :I dont for a second believe this theory btw....

[Silvertusk]

Still doesn't make any sense to me. What caused the causes outside of time? How can a cause cause itself?

A cause does not cause itself - there is another cause that causes it all the way to infinity- all happening simultaneously in this timeless initial state of the universe.

[MarcusOfLycia]

A cause does not cause itself - there is another cause that causes it all the way to infinity- all happening simultaneously in this timeless initial state of the universe.

Ah, okay. For some reason I thought it was circular... must have misread. Although, if its possible... this might actually be worse. I wonder how one goes about coming up with evidence for an infinite series of causes. Heh... I wouldn't want to be that guy

[Silvertusk]

A cause does not cause itself - there is another cause that causes it all the way to infinity- all happening simultaneously in this timeless initial state of the universe.

Ah, okay. For some reason I thought it was circular... must have misread. Although, if its possible... this might actually be worse. I wonder how one goes about coming up with evidence for an infinite series of causes. Heh... I wouldn't want to be that guy

That is why I asked the question - is there any evidence for this because Quentin Smith holds to this theory - or did he just literally make it up? I am guessing the latter

[MarcusOfLycia]

It seems like a logical thought progression if someone -has- to do away with a first cause. Think of it this way... "There can't be a first cause because I won't accept God as a creator. If I can't have a first cause, what if I have so many causes that there aren't any? The only way I could do that is with an infinite number of causes, because any finite number of causes still has a 'first' cause."

[Silvertusk]

It seems like a logical thought progression if someone -has- to do away with a first cause. Think of it this way... "There can't be a first cause because I won't accept God as a creator. If I can't have a first cause, what if I have so many causes that there aren't any? The only way I could do that is with an infinite number of causes, because any finite number of causes still has a 'first' cause."

Yeah - it stinks of desperation to me.

[Seraph]

The infinite regression of causes doesn't make very much sense. However, one that makes somewhat sense (though I don't believe it) is the "parallel universes within a multiverse" theory. In that model, the grand multiverse that gave birth to our universe is essentially eternal and is the "first cause", which if true, would successfully explain away the existence of God. Of course, there is no evidence for it...

It would be nice if that theory was disproven, as I think it poses a much bigger threat to the idea of a Creator.