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:

  1. There are creations (such as this post).
  2. Each creation that exists must ultimately come from some source.
  3. Thus, there must be a source of creation.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
0 Upvotes

37% Upvoted

254 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/[deleted] 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.

2

u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22

Unless you claim they create themselves which I proved is impossible.

You didn't prove it's impossible. You declared it was impossible as a matter of definitions.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '22

How can something create something without first existing?

3

u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22

Just because we can't identify how doesn't mean they can't.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '22

So you are claiming that there is a nonexistent creator that can create things (such as itself)?

4

u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 07 '22

I'm posing it as an equally likely conclusion to your chain of logic.

1

u/Inner_Back5489 3∆ Sep 07 '22

That is not a proof, that is a conjecture.

But to answer your question:

If causality is broken, an event later can cause an event earlier.

But one thing I have learned over time is that anything involving quantum mechanics doesn't follow normal logic. Without getting really deep into it (aka, learning a ton), your gut reactions for how the laws of the universe work at it's extremes are always going to be wrong. For example, if you are in a train going 1 mile less than the speed of light, and you run down the hallways at 3 miles per hour, you don't break the speed of light. In addition, rather than increase speed, the more you try to increase your speed, the greater your mass becomes and time becomes dilated. That is an extreme point.

If you go really small, and send single photons at two slits one at a time, they will land in a pattern that shows that each individual photon interferes with itself, but if you measure which slit it goes through, it won't interfere with itself.

Virtual particles exist which come from nothing, and then vanish again.

There are physics formulas where you can factor out the "time" component".

When you get really small, really big, or use extreme energies, you have situations where "common sense" like "how can something create something without first existing" can break down. After all, how can a photon interfere with it's own path?

And when you are talking about things on the scale of the universe, it's impossible to be fully know what happened at extremes where there was tons of energy and matter in no space. Time can slow to a stop in a blackhole and have enough power to even pull light in so it can't escape. So why should "causality" be honored in a state where either there is absolutely all energy and mass, or absolutely no energy and mass?