0

Science has shown that the universe had a beginning, and we know it exists. Within religion, a universe that had a beginning is explained by a Cause in sacred scriptures, in general in the form of everything that had a beginning must have a sufficient cause for its coming into existence. How have philosophers, as distinct from scientists and theologians, handled this?

This is not a question "pushing a personal philosophy", but one posing a very important query into the existential domain of reality that any credible philosophy must face: the origin of the universe and all within it. The answer would have very serious implications to the ultimate meaning or purposelessness of life.

So has any philosopher or philosophy given a credible answer to the ultimate Cause question?

  • This is a fallacy of use-mention mixup. Eg of use-mention confusion: «Cat is a mammal; Mammal is a 6 letter word. Therefore cat is a 6 letter word» When you quote the second mammal the faux syllogism disappears. Likewise here. The atheist(ic idea) idea is the primary use. The formulated idea of atheism by a person is a mention. They exist at different levels; in different realms – Rushi Mar 04 '23 at 02:47
  • Interestingly there is a nuanced and non fallacious form of the argument from Nietzsche: "If God were dead, logic will die, language will perish, up&down will be erased. If we don't like this denouement we should refrain from killing God." Hilariously people take the "God is dead" out of context and declare Nietzsche an atheist!! (Nietzsche grossly shortened and paraphrased. Better one here ) – Rushi Mar 04 '23 at 03:00
  • The difference between your and Nietzsche's argument is that yours is existential ontological, his is moral, ethical. If you want a pure ontological one start Anselm onwards. Interestingly, in the Abrahamic tradition Islam is more ontological, Christianity more ethic-al. In the Koran you'll find The Sun Moon (ie existence) prove Allah. Whereas Christ: My death is ok (ie meaning) because God is my father. (And as people distort Nietzsche, likewise Anselm: see the defacement of my answer: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/67686/37256) – Rushi Mar 04 '23 at 03:25
  • Note however that science has not proven that the Universe has a begining, there is much empirical evidence for it being in expansion, but nothing about its state before Big Bang can be said. See also this post on Physics.SE –  Mar 04 '23 at 15:35
  • @eirene - There is no contradiction for believing in both a beginning "and" an expansion. In fact, it was the "expansion" discovered by Einstein and the astronomers that led them to posit a "beginning" of the universe! (Rolling back time.) You hit the nail on the head: science comes to a screeching halt when solving the Cause of it all. So materialistic and naturalistic pundits are way out of line when "nothing" is given as a Cause of the universe. Science can't say that...but science can rightly infer that there must be a 'Supranatural Cause." A logical and necessary inference. –  Mar 06 '23 at 23:19
  • @Moderator - This question does not "push one's philosophy", but asks for historical evidence of any philosopher who has dealt with this important subject. This question does not ask for opinions, but facts. It is a scientific axiom that this Universe had a "beginning." "From whence? may be a scary question, but it is still a question that begs to be asked. –  Mar 20 '23 at 21:25
  • This question seems to makes assumptions, ie. that the 'universe' (as opposed to the cosmos) is 'everything', and that the universe definitely had a beginning. You might reframe the question by looking into cosmological arguments and asking for more specifics about arguments for/against (for example), the Kalam Cosmological Argument (inc. its variations). – Futilitarian Mar 21 '23 at 10:31

1 Answers1

3

I can see at least three faults with your logic. Firstly, the universe might have been around for ever. Secondly, even if the universe needed a cause, the cause might be something other than what you call god, and thirdly, even if what you call god had created the universe billions of years ago, there is no reason to suppose god still exists. After all, god might have topped him or herself in a fit of depression in the face of so many unappreciative atheists.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • (MARCO) - MIGHT HAVE - Your three statements are "faith statements" and not statements of fact, but opinions not dealing with fact. (1) One must erase all the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe to embrace your "might have." (2) This identity of God is from His self-revelation, not man's surmising. (3) The Creator has to be outside space and TIME in order to avoid illogical self-creation. OPINIONS do not stand up to valid logic. –  Feb 21 '23 at 21:40
  • 4
    @raygrant it seems to me that you are presupposing the existence of 'god' in creating your argument against a disbelief in 'god'. Atheists would simply deny your grounds. – Marco Ocram Feb 21 '23 at 21:51
  • 1
    What is the 'self revelation' you are talking about? – Marco Ocram Feb 21 '23 at 21:51
  • (MARCO) Excellent question! GOD IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT is a book written by Francis Schaeffer, emphasizing that God had spoken supernaturally through the prophets (shown in the Tanach: The Jewish Law and the Prophets, and Writings). But during the Roman era, in the hub-bub of literate civilization, God made Himself known in the Incarnation of Jesus (v. Christmas). The Invisible became Visible! Jesus showed His Divinity by 5 proofs: Sinless life, Healings, Fulfilled prophecy ,Resurrection (Easter) , and Charismata! God showed what He is like in the life of Jesus. –  Feb 21 '23 at 22:19
  • 2
    @raygrant thank you, that is most illuminating. I now have a much better appreciation of the background to your question. – Marco Ocram Feb 21 '23 at 22:26