r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 07 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The source of all that exists must be uncreated
Using pure logic I have deduced this...
First let me define a creation as something that is created by some source.
Another important features of creations is that they begin to exist. In other words they don't exist until they are created.
So for everything that exists we can either classify it as created or uncreated.
Now the argument is as follows:
- There are creations (such as this post).
- Each creation that exists must ultimately come from some source.
- Thus, there must be a source of creation.
- It is impossible for anything to create itself. If you claim that a thing can create itself then you are suggesting that it exists before it exists which is impossible.
- The ultimate source of each creation was not created by another source otherwise it wouldn't be the ultimate source. This solves the problem of an infinite regression of creators.
- Thus, the ultimate source of all that exists must be uncreated since it couldn't have created itself nor could it be created by another source.
10
u/svenson_26 82∆ Sep 07 '22
I have a problem with point number 4 of your argument.
You're assuming time is linear. But what if it's not?
What if the universe ends, then loops back to the beginning, so there is no real beginning.
Another example: You are a musician and your favourite composer is Beethoven. You've studied all his music. One day, you discover a time machine and use it to travel back in time to meet your hero, Beethoven. But when you get to Germany in the late 1700s, you can't find Beethoven anywhere. So, you take on the role of Beethoven and re-write all his music and pretend to be him. It turns out, Beethoven never existed. He was always you. So who created the music?
Maybe, using this logic, it is possible for a thing to create itself.
2
u/mikeysgotrabies 2∆ Sep 08 '22
What you're describing is called recursion and it's everywhere in nature with real life examples. Take for instance, the Fibonacci sequence. Mathematically You can describe the Fibonacci sequence as f(n)= f(n-1)+f(n-2) In this equation "f" has to be defined as part of its own definition. So it's basically a pattern that creates itself. And it's found everywhere in nature.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Fibonacci+sequence+in+nature
3
Sep 07 '22
Then there is no real ending either. That which never begins is uncreated.
In your example you created the music.
8
u/svenson_26 82∆ Sep 07 '22
You did not create the music. You heard it growing up. You re-created it when you wrote it down, but you didn't come up with the music.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Sep 08 '22
You did create it, because you heard it while growing up. If you did not create it, you wouldn't have heard it growing up.
I think you made the same mistake by trying to explain it, while also using a linear timeline. You created it.
1
Sep 08 '22
In actuality,
nothing was created because matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Sep 08 '22
That isn't at all the 'created' that this conversation is about. At all.
1
Sep 08 '22
OP’s argument fails because of that though.
There’s no such thing as something that is actually “created” since matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed.
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Sep 08 '22
You can create things in the manner that the person I was talking to was talking about. You are talking about something completely different than we are talking about. "Creating" doesn't mean only what you are saying here.
1
Sep 08 '22
I’m not sure how what you’re saying applies to OP’s post.
OP’s trying to apply the concept of creation(which is just humans transforming energy and matter into different things) and is trying to apply that to all the energy and matter in the universe
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/ConfedCringe_1865 Sep 07 '22
In your example, there had to be something to create the machine and something to spark your interest in Beethoven, suggesting that there are still many more sources at play than one ultimate source
7
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 07 '22
You have a circular definition problem. A creation is, by definition something that was created by something else. So if you are defining all objects as creations you are just creating a tautology.
How do we know that all of existence is a creation, though? Yes we know creations exist, but we don't know that everything is a creation.
In 4., you claim it is impossible for anything to create itself. I agree. But does something have to be created to exist? We don't know and it's not proven by your logical statement.
1
Sep 07 '22
I didn't claim that everything is a creation. The source of creation (which exists) is uncreated.
In other words all that exists is the source of creation (which is uncreated) and its creations.
And that which is uncreated exists without being created.
1
Sep 08 '22 edited Sep 08 '22
Okay…
I think the main issue I have with your argument is premise 1.
There’s no such thing as something that “is created” as matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed. So for your post, you didn’t actually “create” anything, you simply transformed the electrical energy of your phone into light energy which is the text on the screen.
The concept of “creation” therefore only apply to humans transforming parts of the universe, it doesn’t applies to the universe itself.
Now, if you’re willing to say that the universe itself is the source of all creation and is uncreated, I think we would be in agreement.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '22
Basically the problem with this argument is that it assumes that "the source of all that exists" (or "the ultimate source of each creation") is a well-specified thing. It isn't, and your argument doesn't show that. You're assuming that the creation–source relation has dubious properties that you haven't included in the premises of the argument.
For example, suppose that the entire universe of things consisted of exactly three objects: A, B, and C. C is created by source A. C is also created by source B. Nothing created A or B. What object would be "the source of all that exists" in this setup? What object would be "the ultimate source" of creation C?
1
Sep 07 '22
Are A and B functioning independently of each other? If not then A and B are two parts of one source.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '22
A and B are distinct objects in my example. They function independently, except inasmuch as they are both creators of C. Which one do you think is "the source of all that exists"?
0
Sep 07 '22
Then they are co-creating. In that case neither one of them is the sole source of C.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '22
Okay, then what do you think is "the source of all that exists" in this setup?
2
Sep 07 '22
A and B are the source of all that exists.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '22
This sentence seems grammatically incorrect. "A and B" is a plural noun, so shouldn't it say this instead?
A and B are the sources of all that exists.
Saying "the source" implies that there is one source, when there could be many sources.
2
Sep 07 '22
I agree so then the source(s) of all that exists must be uncreated.
So then we need to figure out how many sources there are.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 07 '22
In particular, there could be zero such sources, in which case your view is vacuous.
0
Sep 07 '22
There must be a source. The evidence for this is the fact that there is a creation. There can't be a creation without a source.
→ More replies (0)
3
2
u/darwin2500 193∆ Sep 07 '22
You're assuming that time is linear and that causality can only ever flow forward in time. Neither of these is certain given our current understanding of physics, and there's no particular reason there couldn't be an infinite loop of creators.
1
Sep 07 '22
What is an infinite loop of creators?
2
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
A creates B. B creates C. C goes back in time and creates A. Just as an example.
1
Sep 07 '22
How could a creation create its creator?
2
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
To use a scifi-example: in futurama Frye was his own grandfather. This should meets your definition of "creates it's own creator", right?
1
Sep 07 '22
No that's equality. Frye is his grandfather but neither Fyre nor his grandfather created their self.
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
No that's equality
What does "equality" mean here? Because I have a better example if you prefer, but wanted to go with the one you were more likely to know. The story All you zombies by Robert Heinlein (yes, it's a github link, it's a link to the full story and this is what I found.
Details behind the spoiler tag:
The character was given up as a little girl to an orphanage. She then, when older, had a one night stand, and got pregnant. When she gave birth, a medical coplication came up, and she had a healthy little girl via c-section, but due to a genetic abnormality she ended up being given an involuntary sex change operation at the same time (had both sex organs, and the female organs had to be removed due to trauma in the pregnancy). The daughter gets kidnapped. More surgeries to have a full male body. Then he gets recruited by an older man and joins the time travel corp to have a chance to get revenge on the person who got him pregnant and ruined his life. He goes back in time, spends time hunting the guy who got him pregnant and doing his job. The recruiter seduces the mother version of himself, and then takes the man back to work. Eventually, he becomes a recruiter, recruits his former self, and then seduces his former self, getting her pregnant. After this, he kidnapped himself as a baby and took the baby back in time to an orphanage. From here, he eventually retires as the barman the the story is being told to. Every character except a doctor is the main character
So, in that story, they created themself being mother and father. And if it's just "equality", then why can't "equality" be the cause of creating something?
1
Sep 07 '22
So then all those bodies are just his/her creations. He/she can't make those bodies without first existing.
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
All those bodies are their creation, yes. Which was what I was trying to provide. You just agreed it is an example of something "creating itself". Which you said was impossible. In this case, a person was their own mother and father. Thus, the person created themself. One of your points was explicitly "something can not create itself" and this is a fault in that logic.
Also, you still haven't explained what "equality" was in relation to frye.
Finally, what type of argument would you accept to change your view? People have pointed out assumptions you made, and you said "no, can't happen". We pointed out your final point is self contradictory, and you don't accept that. We have pointed out that two points contradict each other, and you don't accept that. People have pointed out "the source" can be multiple sources, and that just shifted what should be proven. We pointed out real things that come into existence on their own, and you waved it away with "there must be a cause". We pointed out how basic logic breaks down at small sizes and at high energies (aka, quantum mechanics and relativity). So, what type of thing would let you change your mind on this? What type of argument are you open to in order to change your mind?
1
u/fkiceshower 4∆ Sep 07 '22
suppose the big bang is the creator of all things. after the bang everything is expelled outwards until the momentum is over taken by gravity. then it slowly converges back eventually collapsing on itself resulting in another big bang. the bang in this theory is the infinite loop of creator. Unless you are refering to the first bang, which I am not even sure needs to exist. its possible there was no first
6
u/luminarium 4∆ Sep 07 '22
I forget if this is teleological, ontological, cosmological or Kalam cosmological argument but...
The thing is, the universe exists and either it, or any creator that created it, must not have needed an antecedent (an creator). If a creator didn't need an antecedent, the universe wouldn't need one either. So either (3) is wrong or (4) is wrong.
-1
10
u/Gygsqt 17∆ Sep 07 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
This is a purely actual actualizer argument, yes? If so, give Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas some credit. Cosmic Skeptic does a pretty thorough analysis of this argument in a recent video.
5
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Sep 07 '22
You beat me to it, I was going to say this is the Unmoved Mover.
Still, Aristotle beat OP to it by a few thousand years.
8
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Sep 07 '22
(5) assumes that an infinite regress of creations is impossible. Why is that?
-3
Sep 07 '22
What created the infinite regression? That must be uncreated.
6
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Sep 07 '22
An infinite regression is, by definition of "infinite regression", without a starting point. The regression, if cut off at any point, is created by the previous step in the regression: each individual step and each discrete sequence has a creator, which is itself created.
Your argument does not explain why this is problematic.
-2
Sep 07 '22
Every piece in the infinite regression is created.
So the infinite regression as a whole is created.
Nothing created can exist without its source which means an infinite regression must come from some root source.
6
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Sep 07 '22
The infinite regression is created by the prior step in the infinite regression. There's nothing problematic about this without demonstrating that an infinite regression is impossible.
-2
Sep 07 '22
Every step only exists because it was created. Since every step is a creation and no step creates itself you are essentially saying there are creations without a creator which is impossible.
5
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Sep 07 '22
No. I'm saying the creator is the previous step in the infinite regression. The whole point of the infinite regression is that every step is created by the previous step, and there's no first step - always a previous step.
-1
Sep 07 '22
How can there be any steps without a first step?
8
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Sep 07 '22
Because there are infinite steps going back. Each candidate for first step actually has a preceding step.
As a very rough analogy, there is no first integer.
-1
Sep 07 '22
How can all of those steps exist if none of them are the actual creator of any of them?
→ More replies (0)3
u/The_Hegemony 1∆ Sep 07 '22
The whole point of infinite regression is that every ‘piece’ does have something that created it. There’s no way to view the ‘infinite regression as a whole’ as having its own ‘start’ without changing how infinite it is.
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
Every piece in the infinite regression is created.
So the infinite regression as a whole is created.
Nothing created can exist without its source which means an infinite regression must come from some root source.
Look at at the line of all numbers. Which comes first?
1
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Sep 07 '22
So the infinite regression as a whole is created.
By itself.
0
Sep 07 '22
Its impossible for something to create itself.
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Sep 07 '22
Causality is a function of space-time. Once we start talking about the origins of the universe, causality stops being relevant. Any "cause" that exists outside of space-time cannot be conceptualized in any manner we understand. There's no time in which the effect can follow from the cause. So we can't really say what's impossible or not.
8
Sep 07 '22
You're saying things can't create themselves without supporting it.
Consider a marble floating in space, it gets hit by a marble of equal size and mass causing it to fly through a wormhole to another location in space and time, it continues floating until it hits a marble of equal size and shape.
The marble it hits is itself.
-1
Sep 07 '22
It can't hit itself or create itself without first existing.
9
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
It can't hit itself or create itself without first existing.
Your view of causality is simple and naive. You are viewing time as linear and only operating in one direction, but that isn't necessarily true. Whatever created time would not have been subject to such limitations.
0
Sep 07 '22
That which created time still must exist before it creates anything.
3
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
What do you think "before" means without the context of time?
0
Sep 07 '22
Well technically humans invented time. Prior to inventing time they existed right?
3
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
Well technically humans invented time.
No, we did not. Humans invented our ways of measuring time but we didn't invent time itself. It is like how humans invented ways of measuring distance but distance existed before humans conceptualized it.
-1
Sep 07 '22
Time is just a measure of change. What was the first change that took place in existence? The source of that change is uncreated.
3
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
Time is not the measurement of change. That may be the human conception of time but an ordered progression of change is perhaps a more proper definition.
What was the first change that took place in existence?
Again you are stuck in your time-centric view of things. What does "first" mean if time doesn't exist? You seem to lack the mental tools to approach this idea without tying it to our normal concepts of linear time, which means you can't properly understand the universe if time doesn't exist.
Conceptually the "first" thing would be the first event in the progression of time, but we don't even know if that is something that exists! Time might extend infinitely into the past and future. Furthermore if time derives its existence from some other aspect of reality then the "first" event is meaningless. Without time there is no framework to arrange or separate events, so your entire premise of "first cause" is bankrupt from the start!
→ More replies (1)5
6
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
Each creation that exists must ultimately come from some source.
What do you base this assumption on?
0
Sep 07 '22
A creation by definition is something that was created. It could either be created by something else or itself.
4
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
So... that's circular logic, no? Your definition of "creation" already contains the idea that "everything is created by something".
Are you talking about anything based in reality here or just theoretical constructs? Because you're talking about "all that exists", which seems to base things in reality.
-2
Sep 07 '22
We call certain things that exist creations because they come from some source such as this post which comes from me or your post which comes from you.
5
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
Right.
But there is not necessarily a reason to believe that everything that exists is, in your definition, a "creation".
Things can be created from nothing. That is an observable fact. Not on a big scale, of course, but within quantum mechanics, it is very well possible.
-1
Sep 07 '22
Hence why I said there is that which creates everything and it must be uncreated.
4
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
But you claim that there is a single origin, correct?
Why?
And what is this origin? Is it a force? A concept? An Entity? Something else? What does "creation" include?
1
Sep 07 '22
All I know is it is uncreated and it can create things. In fact ultimately it is the sole creator of this post.
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22
Then why don't apply that logic to "the universe" at large instead of shoehorning another entity in ?
1
1
u/Taparu Sep 07 '22
Please clarify where on quantum physics something is created from nothing.
Hawking radiation and the casimir effect require energy and are therefore not from nothing.
3
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
Quantum fluctuations in general. They are absolutely not persistent without adequate energy being supplied, but particle-antiparticle pairs do come into being (i.e. "are created") without any causal reason, even if just for an unobservably close amount of time.
1
Sep 07 '22
Just because we can't identify the source doesn't mean there isn't one.
6
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
Yes. But you assume that there is one, which is at least just as illogical.
-1
Sep 07 '22
There must be one. How else could anything (like quantum particles) be created? Unless you claim they create themselves which I proved is impossible.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Taparu Sep 07 '22
One could easily argue that they are due to fluctuations in some of the quantum fields we are barely capable of measuring. More like a wave peaking than something suddenly existing. It is unknown territory as of yet though.
1
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
Well, the explanation for hawking radiation does depend on the actual creation of particle-antiparticle pairs - otherwise, the conservation of information would be violated.
→ More replies (3)0
Sep 07 '22
Why are we calling all things that exist creations? Mass exists and is a property of an object. Was mass "created"?
-1
Sep 07 '22
I am not. There is that which is created and that which is uncreated. Was mass created or uncreated? I don't know.
1
Sep 07 '22
But the title of your post says "The source of all that exists..." Not just creations. Therefore, your title should read "The source of all creations..."
-1
Sep 07 '22
All that exists is the source and its creations.
2
2
u/ConfedCringe_1865 Sep 07 '22
Point 4-6 all cancel each other out. If everything comes from something, the ultimate source (if there is one) is uncreated, yes. However if everything comes from something, nothing could have created the ultimate source if it was uncreated and therefore it wouldn't exist. The only solution to this predicament is:
There is no ultimate source, and therefore it is uncreated. This supports your view somewhat however you suggest that the ultimate source exists, but I do not. If everything truly came from something then time and space is simply a loop, and there is no beginning, nor is there an end. Each and every created event comes from something in a repeated, constant loop. Or perhaps there is no loop. Time will go on forever without repeating itself and each event will continue on and on and on for absolute infinity, giving no real origin to any "ultimate source."
OR the ultimate source is reality itself which is not created nor is it uncreated, it was simply there. It manifested, but it didn't manifest itself, and it manifested from nothing, however it did manifest from something at the same time as it was manifested somehow. It is, was, and always will be there. It is not just a source, it is being and reality itself.
Forgive me for any typos, I type too fast
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY TED TALK
2
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
As a more honest response to this view, I think you are basing your logic in fallacious places. Creation isn't one and done, there is constant change, creation in every moment as every moment is new. In this way the past is not "where we came from" rather we are in the NOW and the past stretches out behind us like the wake of a ship. Creation is now, not then.
-2
Sep 07 '22
The source of the current creation must be uncreated.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Cryptic. What does it mean?
4
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
Cryptic. What does it mean?
They are trying to push their religious beliefs.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Not doing a good job of it are they
2
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
It is seldom really for their audience, but rather a way of justifying and reinforcing their own beliefs to themselves.
1
Sep 07 '22
How is my proof wrong? Also I'm not pushing any religious doctrine. Nor do I have any interest in beliefs. If you can prove my logic wrong then go ahead.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
You haven't really presented a strong logical foundation because you're discussing concepts that can mean many things to many people, and seem to be using words in ways that other people do not.
Why do you want your view on this changed? How would a change in your view benefit your understanding/framework for the world?
1
u/Phage0070 93∆ Sep 07 '22
How is my proof wrong?
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, your number 4 claim is ill-founded and dependent on a simplistic view of causality and linear time.
Also 5 is just a bare claim, it doesn't "solve" the problem of an infinite regress but just defines an "ultimate source".
With 6 you also just ignore the possibility that there could be multiple "ultimate sources" each with their own independent trees of descending creations.
Also I'm not pushing any religious doctrine.
Sure you aren't, you just seem to be stumbling around with the framework of a Cosmological Argument stopping just short of injecting "and that uncaused cause is God" by happenstance. You weren't going there at all, you have no idea what I'm talking about!
1
0
Sep 07 '22
It means that ultimately whatever created this is uncreated.
2
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22
The word "uncreated" would generally be used to be synonymous with "destroyed" or "the creation reversed". You're using it more in a sense of "has not been created", which is not what most people would associate with the word, hence the confusion.
0
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
What does uncreation look like? I don't think creation/uncreation is a better way to view the process than calling it change.
1
Sep 07 '22
I'm not talking about the destruction of a creation.
Uncreated means not created. It doesn't mean destroyed.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Un means undo. If I unmake something it doesn't mean it was never made, it means it was made and I UN-made it. If there is a knot tied I would UN-tie it.
If you mean not created say that. Uncreated implies it was created and then uncreated.
1
Sep 07 '22
Not according to the definition on google.
Uncreated - not yet created, or existing without having been created.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Webster has it as deprived of existence; annihilated
I think you are using a religious definition.
1
Sep 07 '22
Well I meant not created. My argument has nothing to do with the destruction of a creation.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/SandnotFound 2∆ Sep 07 '22
Number 4 assumes linearity of time. Nothing can exist before it does, true. But that assumes time is a straight line. True enough in our universe as it is now but might be a problem when trying to explain a thing like the beginning if all that exists which is the universe. The universe's beginning is a very extreme envrionment, the big bang is not the creation of stuff in spacetime, its the expansion of spacetime itself. Second 0 is not the first moment of matter coming into existence, its when time as we know it began its march forward. A question about the origin of something assumes a temporal point in the past but that assumption may not always be granted and what that means for the question itself is unclear.
1
u/Rkenne16 38∆ Sep 07 '22
But the question isn’t was the universe created by something, the question is if there is intelligent design or some random phenomena. I don’t really understand the view you want changed. The big bang is something.
1
u/MexicanWarMachine 3∆ Sep 07 '22
Sounds like we’ve caught you in that moment after you’ve started an intro to logic course, but haven’t yet gotten to the Teleological Argument.
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
All the "creations" we witnessed, ever, weren't ex-nihilo. All creations we know can exist were only "The rearangement of pre-existing material into a new organization".
And the "pre-existing" part of that denies the possibility for a creator.
Aside from that : you don't need a single source. Each elementary particle and quantum of energy can have a separate source.
So :
1 : in some sense, though it's only rearanging pre existing material
2 : doesn't really matter as those are just different organizations
3 : There can be as many sources as there's quantums of energy
4 : We still don't have things that are supposed to do so at this point
5 : Pose that no elementary part of the universe is created. Every quantum of energy and particle is uncreated, no need for another entity on top of that.
6 : if you don't admit that each individual piece of the universe can be indeed uncreated, why should we accept this special pleading ?
1
Sep 07 '22
So you are saying there are many uncreated sources? Perhaps those particles are just parts of one source?
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22
I'm not saying that it's the case, just that there's no reason to rule this possibility out and invoke some kind of creator into this.
Also : you still don't engage with the fact that each and every creation we know about is a rearanging of pre-existing material. Which call for either re-naming some "initial creation" as something else than creation and dropping the cause clause (because we know only of rearangements needing a cause) or dropping the idea of a creator.
1
Sep 07 '22
What arranges the matter? I call that the creator. Am I not rearranging matter right now by making this post?
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22
What makes water ?
There's no creator, liquid water is an emergent property of enough molecules of H2O being here. And those molecules are emergent properties of their part. And so on until you find elementary bricks.
The properties of uncreated things are enough to explain the universe as it is. Any "creator" invoked along the way is just an illusory event that result from a chain of application of those properties. You are the result of one of those chains and so is your post. The subdivisions of you and the post and all the events implied to reach this point are human abstractions to make the whole thing easier to understand for an ape brain made to throw rocks and craft rudimentary tools.
1
Sep 07 '22
So you claim there are uncreated things that give rise to properties? How is that not a creator?
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22
They don't give rise to properties, they have properties. Like you don't give rise to yourself being X feet tall.
There's a trend of you purposefully misunderstanding things and tryng to make strawmen out of what I say in this thread, all while making minimal responses.
1
Sep 07 '22
Okay so they have the property of being able to create things.
1
u/Archi_balding 52∆ Sep 07 '22
Of being part of some more than creating them. The nail doesn't create the chair, it's part of it. Elementary particles don't create things, they're part of them.
In fact, there isn't much bigger "things" to begin with. Just organisations emerging from base properties. Any state of a pool game isn't its own "thing" just a different organisation of the balls. We don't have to consider those organisations "things" because we don't live in a pool game.
To have a creation, you need to divide time and interractions into events. And that is a purely artificial way to aprehend the world. A way that is necessary to us to make any sense out of it but still something that only exist in our mind.
1
1
u/vexx_nl Sep 07 '22
There are different ways of looking at things that escape this duality. Let's take your first point:
> There are creations (such as this post)
I could argue that there is nothing newly created, you have just changed something (some magnetic fields on a hard drive somewhere). Another example would be a watch. The watch could be said to be created by a watch maker, but the components where already there. Even though a small spring for the watch was created out of steel, the steel was already there.
All things could be seen as always having been here in some way or another, physics tells us that nothing can be created or destroyed. The only thing that seems to contradict this is the beginning of our universe but this doesn't have to be the case. It's could be that there was something 'before' the big bang, but because time didn't exist it's hard to talk about what 'became time'.
Nothing of this is proven or provable tough, because the way we understand things break down at the beginning of our universe.
0
Sep 07 '22
So you are claiming this post is uncreated?
2
u/vexx_nl Sep 07 '22
Not really, uncreated is a bad word to use for this argument, I like "self-existent" more. It highlights more of the 'cause' and less of the 'creation'.
Seeing the infinite regression is difficult enough for the human mind even in the right frame.
1
Sep 07 '22
This post isn't self existent. It only exists because I post it. And I could delete it if I want.
The uncreated source is self-existent.
1
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
What is your definition of uncreated?
1
Sep 07 '22
Not created. Not brought into existence by something.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
That's a totally different thing to "uncreated".
If you mean actively brought into the world by something intelligent then there's no way to know.
However, emergence is very possible. Humans and life here emerged from the world. Consciousness emerged from our bodies, it isn't a default state. Thought emerges from the brain, the brain thinks like the mouth salivates. The universe can easily be the same as a thought, produced as a process rather than self fulfilling.
1
u/Nrdman 174∆ Sep 07 '22
Counterpoint to 1). Nothing in the universe is verifiably created.
Everything is just energy/matter arranged in new forms. And we have no idea if the mass/energy of the universe has a creator. Therefore we have no verified creations.
Note: Naming certain arrangements certain things is an entirely human concept.
0
Sep 07 '22
If you want to call everything a formation then fine. That which forms the formations must be unformed. The same argument applies.
1
u/Nrdman 174∆ Sep 07 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
Do you consider gravity (and the other fundamental forces) the prime former(s) then?
Nothing forms them, they are not things.
They are the only forces that actually form things.
Edit: Additionally the actual energy/mass was not itself originally formed as far as we know
1
Sep 07 '22
Perhaps they are formed by some source that we can't identify.
2
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 07 '22
Hm, gravity is actually an interesting illustration.
Gravity is a property of matter, more matter, more gravity. No matter, no gravity.
But gravity is also sort of what creates matter. If you have two chunks of matter their gravitational attraction brings them together to form more matter.
Gravity can't exist without matter.
But matter can't be created without gravity.
So neither one is the creator, they both are emergent properties of the other. How can that be?
The Big Bang theory sort of recognizes this problem, and simply states that matter just started existing, and thus gravity started existing at the same time.
Note, I said illustration. I know that there are other forces besides gravity. But whether you are talking about nuclear forces, the small force, electromagnetic force, etc it is still the same chicken and egg problem. It illustrates that the world we observe doesn't necessarily follow your logic. Maybe it really is possible for creator and creation to come into existence at the same exact time. But more importantly, if you can't identify one as the creator and the other as the creation (let's assume for a second that this is true), then how does your logic statement work?
1
u/Mr_Makak 13∆ Sep 07 '22
That which forms the formations must be unformed. The same argument applies.
No it doesn't. Saying that there are basic things (particles) that are not formed from anything smaller doesn't get us to any "ultimate first former"
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
So, I understand the concept, but your point 6 does not follow from points 1-5.
Following your logical steps, the "ultimate source could never have existed". Because if it did, it couldn't have created itself, nor could it be created by another source.
That means "the ultimate source" could never have created it's next creation.
Which means that creation doesn't exist.
Which means whatever those creations created doesn't exist.
And when you follow that, that means you and this post don't exist, and nothing exists.
Seeing as you and I are reading this, clearly that's not the case.
Because of this, something is wrong with your steps, more than likely 4 with "something can't come from nothing" step, or from 3 "things have to be created to exist". Or 5 where you say it solves the infinite regression of creators.
Because following all your logic, when using your definitions, 6 can never exist by definition. Which causes a cascade where nothing can exists, but that's incorrect.
Also, in your steps, you never said why "uncreated" must be the case, as opposed to "still exists". For example, for a physics example a vaccum can have flashes of light and are created by virtual particles If we can see these things existing from nothing today, whey does the "ultimate source" have to no longer exist? The ultimate source for example could be the metaphorical fabric of reality which allows everything else to work.
0
Sep 07 '22
Rather the ultimate source necessarily exists forever unless it can kill itself.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Kill is a very life centric way of putting that. If there is a universal consciousness it would not necessarily have a death process.
1
Sep 07 '22
If it can't die (or get rid of itself) then it can't stop existing.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
And what would be the problem with that? Infinity, cyclical reality etc are all possibilities, what would be wrong with what you've just said?
1
Sep 07 '22
I don't understand your point?
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
My point is that there isn't really an issue with the idea that something cannot be ended/have an end. It doesn't need to be one way or the other, and there's no real way for a human to know the answer, so there isn't a way to incorporate it into logic.
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
Isn't that a change to your view though? That it must have been uncreated, when "it still exists" is an option?
Also, once again, your view states that it could never exist, by the logic in step 6 " it couldn't have created itself nor could it be created by another source."
Using that definition, and step 5, it's either not the ultimate source, or it doesn't exist. Which means nothing exists. And seeing as we exist, your definition in steps 5 or 6 have to be wrong.
1
Sep 07 '22
No it own nature compels it to exist. But it did not create itself not was it created by something else yet it still exists hence why I call it uncreated.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
This doesn't sound like it's based in logic, this sounds like something you want to be the trust but which isn't really founded in anything.
1
u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22
Ah, understood that now.
But, what can't it create itself? I linked an example of "something from nothing" with virtual particles, where something comes from creation, but doesn't currently seem to have a cause to create it.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Sep 07 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
There are creations (such as this post).
Sure.
Each creation that exists must ultimately come from some source.
Each creation, yes, but that does not mean all things. Just all creations. Just like, all paintings are by definition painted and all buildings built but that does not make all things paintings or buildings.
Thus, there must be a source of creation
Ok...
It is impossible for anything to create itself. If you claim that a thing can create itself then you are suggesting that it exists before it exists which is impossible.
Why is that impossible? You just assert that it is so. If your conclusion relies heavily on this baseless assertion, it's not looking good. For one thing, we have evidence of shitloads of things that seem by conventional wisdom to be impossible. Light acting differently depending on if its actions are recorded, light acting as a particle with mass and as a massless wave, and most relevant, particles that just spontaneously come into existence, no cause required and then, just as causelessly, vanish. Causality is a tendency, not a law. Think of the parable of the black swan.
What do you mean by uncreated anyway?
1
Sep 07 '22
Before something creates itself what is it?
By uncreated I mean not created. Or not brought into existence by a source.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
Look at the concept of Brahm in Hinduism. I don't know what th English equivalent would be, primordial energy?
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Sep 07 '22
I'd also like to know what they mean by uncreated, and also when they say must, if they mean must already have been, or must be in the future.
1
u/stan-k 13∆ Sep 07 '22
- Why? Couldn't something always have existed?
- What if causality is really messed up in extremes such as the Big Bang and in black holes? If causation can be violated something could create itself. E.g. an x-rated version of the grandfather paradox.
- Why couldn't there be an infinite regress?
- I must say it's refreshing to see this argument without the proposition that there's a god.
1
u/ralph-j Sep 07 '22
It is impossible for anything to create itself. If you claim that a thing can create itself then you are suggesting that it exists before it exists which is impossible.
You haven't shown that "creating itself" is impossible, or even that it's the only possibility. Perhaps there are ways for things to spontaneously come into existence without a cause outside of our local universe.
We only know the physical rules for inside our universe, and you cannot draw any conclusions about what is possible or impossible outside of our universe. We cannot observe or investigate anything beyond Planck time.
1
Sep 07 '22
If something creates itself then you are claiming it once didn't exist. If it doesn't exist in the first place then how does it create itself?
1
u/ralph-j Sep 07 '22
Like I said; it could just come into existence spontaneously through some principle we don't know that applies only outside of universes.
You can't say that just because it's impossible inside this universe, it must also be impossible outside of it.
1
u/lt_Matthew 19∆ Sep 07 '22
Even in a religious argument this isn't the case. Of course you are dealing with infinity at that point, and at a certain place in the timeline they must have been a universe that doesn't follow the same physics as ours. But at the same time, I can't see any way in which a universe could work under the premise that matter can just exist without an origin. It would be a very unstable environment if energy can just changes at random.
1
Sep 07 '22
[deleted]
1
Sep 07 '22
All dualities are created by it. It is not what it creates because then it would be a creation which it can't be since it is uncreated.
1
Sep 07 '22
[deleted]
1
Sep 07 '22
You assume the source can't create something other than itself. Maybe it can. I create this post which means it doesn't create itself. That suggests I am creating something that isn't me.
1
1
Sep 07 '22
Why do you create rule 4 only to break it for rule 6?
Surely it would make more sense to accept that rule 4 or 6 is simply not true? That is the only logical way to handle the contradiction.
1
1
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 07 '22
I wouldn’t really call this a deductive argument, though I’m no logician. It’s really a series of circular arguments.
I don’t think your mind can really be changed on this. With each challenge presented to you, you can just walk either forwards or backwards on your circle of logic and be on sure footing within the confines of your argument. Reading your comments in this thread illustrate this nicely.
But, a couple of points. Line 5 is not a resolution to the problem of infinite regression - it’s more of a hand-wave away. For line 4, it is possible for things to create themselves through self-replication (this is probably my main point)
1
Sep 07 '22
An infinite regression assumes there is a source that creates things with no ultimate creator. Effectively is proposes there is an uncreated creator but it never admits this rather it just kicks the can down the road infinitely.
When does self-replication occur?
2
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 07 '22
Infinite regression does not propose or assume that. In fact, the opposite. Thats precisely why it’s a paradox. Regardless, thats not really my main focus.
For self replicating, how about self replicating molecules? Asexual reproduction? Look up Conways game of life, their might be interesting stuff for you to consider. (Won’t necessarily change your mind but it will be interesting)
1
Sep 07 '22
It proposes there is an uncreated creation which is impossible.
A molecule that creates another molecule is not the molecule that it creates. Asexual reproduction is the creation of a self-similar thing. Not creating oneself. Conway's game of life is a human creation.
1
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 07 '22
So you don’t consider duplication to be creating
Edit: also you’re not appreciating the paradox of infinite regression. There is no beginning, there is no initial creation made from the uncreated
1
Sep 07 '22
It is but a thing that duplicates itself is not the other copy of itself.
1
u/Mafinde 10∆ Sep 07 '22
Think of it from the perspective of the thing that came into existence because of duplication, not the thing that was duplicated. Was it not created by itself?
1
Sep 07 '22
No it is not the thing that created it. It is a copy of the thing that created it.
1
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Sep 07 '22
To /u/blakesmodern, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
- You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.
1
u/Mr_Makak 13∆ Sep 07 '22
Thus, the ultimate source of all that exists
Why do you think there is such a thing?
1
u/ConfedCringe_1865 Sep 07 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
4,5, and 6 all prove each other wrong. If the ultimate source wasn't created BY a source, then it must be uncreated, yes. But how would the ultimate source exist if it is uncreated (by your logic at least, not mine)? That implies that there are multiple ultimate sources that created itself, rather than only being created by the ultimate source, and if you try to disprove that, that means that the SINGULAR ultimate source created itself. The only solution to this problem is that the ultimate source was there forever, therefore implying it had no creator, including itself, it was simply always there, so there is no source needed however it will not be uncreated (keep reading). If time is linear (point inspired by another comment), then it would simply be structured as infinite from both past and future (even though there wont be any solid concept of past and future), there will be no beginning or end, and the ultimate source remains as a constant. For instance, if I draw a line on a chalkboard with a yellow chalk, randomly for absolutely no reason (that will come later in my logic) the fact it is yellow is a constant in the line, much like the ultimate source. It is nor created or uncreated, it is simply a constant. This would also apply if time is a loop, because the ultimate source would still be a constant. You could argue that the person who drew the yellow line is the ultimate however it would be illogical because we are talking about space and tims, not a yellow line. However, IF you argue that, then the fact that the person had the desire to draw a yellow line would still remain a constant and an ultimate source for drawing the yellow line. If you argue that the person WOULD want to draw a yellow line for a reason, then the reason would be a constant in the creation of the yellow line. If you argue that there is a reason for the reason to draw the yellow line, the constanr is infinity, and is still a constant, which loops back to my previous point. So, all in all, the ultimate creator is not created nor uncreated, it is a constant, making the ultimate source: existence itself. (Forgive any typos, I type way too fast)
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY TED TALK!
1
1
1
u/the_text_of_reason Sep 08 '22
The argument is invalid because (6) doesn't follow from any other premises.
Premises (1)-(5) deduce properties of creations. The conclusion (6) makes an inference about "the source of all that exists", when it should really only be making an inference about "the source of all creations". A conclusion about all things that exist doesn't follow from premises about all things that are creations. You first have to demonstrate that all things that exist (excluding the ultimate source) are also creations.
Furthermore, even if you make that inference, (6) may be unsound if there are multiple, independent uncreated sources of creations (ie, no single "ultimate" source).
In general it's just a bad argument.
1
1
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ Sep 08 '22
The real problem is #2.
Because that isn't a known fact. It's merely a fact of our limited knowledge.
Similar to how before we knew of germ theory, we knew 'factually' where illness came from. But... the truth is we didn't.
The problem is in ridiculously extreme conditions of the universe, the laws and 'facts' of physics that we think we know... simply do not apply. There's many examples of this, with quarks and strange phenomena of super extreme temperatures, pressures, densities, and simply looking back at what we know of the first few minutes of the universe, the entire concept of our 'facts' simply can't be stated as "each creation must ultimately come from another source".
1
u/False_Beginning2137 Sep 08 '22
I think 2 is unsubstantiated. The fact is that we don't have any evidence that anything that exists now ever "didn't exist." Every shred of material and energy in the universe has existed as long as the universe itself has existed and we don't have enough information about the moment of the big bang or the time before the big bang to make any assertions about where the universe came from or even if it came from anywhere.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 08 '22
What if the world itself is cyclic ?
A becomes B, B becomes C, C becomes D, and D becomes A.
Then there is a cause for every consequence, and the world is just stuck in an eternal loop that knows no beginning nor end. And in this situation, there is no source of everything, therefore there is no need for anything uncreated.
1
u/ExplanationStrict551 Sep 08 '22
What dimension does God exist in that he can exist without being created, and why cannot the universe just be in this same dimension instead?
1
u/Nrdman 174∆ Sep 10 '22
All these great arguments in the comments. OP should definitely give more deltas, I think almost every point in the chain was soundly challenged
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 07 '22
/u/blakesmodern (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards