Thread: Causal Argument and God

Many of us are familiar with the Anthropic Principle of cosmology and the philosphical causual argument for the proof of an existence of God, that is in the following lines:

1. Everything that has a beginning to its existence also has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe has a beginning to its existence.

3. The universe falls under the subset of the set of everything, therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.

4. The cause for the existence of the universe can be defined as God, or something not in effect of the system.

5. Therefore, god exists.

Now, given that god must not be in effect of the system, that is because parts of the system cannot be responsible for their own causation (and infinite and causal-loops cannot exist), god must also be unique to the system. The Anthropic Principle states that our conception of reality must also be compatible to our observations of it (i.e., mental and materialistic constructs are mutually, principally, identical). This implies that god made our mind compatible with the world he live in. My question is, does this imply that god is omnipotent or omniscience (as many religions suggest), or rather, explainable in scientific terms in nothing more than probabilistic scenarios that resulted in life?

Any special circumstances you can apply to a god, you can also apply to a cosmos: i.e. something outside the known universe (multiverse theory)).

God has the same problems that the cosmos has: infinite regression. At some point, you must satisfy the question of what created the god? Since there's no good reason to believe in such a thing, there's no good reason to interject "god did it" every time we don't know the answer.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

My question is, does this imply that god is omnipotent or omniscience (as many religions suggest), or rather, explainable in scientific terms in nothing more than probabilistic scenarios that resulted in life?

The uncaused cause. To try to answer this question; the cosmological argument for god in no way necessitates or suggests omnipotence or omniscience. Why would it? The latter part of the question is far more interesting and is the domain of theoretical physicists.

There are quite a few other criticisms against this argument for god, but the one SkinWalker describes is sufficient in itself to negate the necessity for an uncaused cause.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Any special circumstances you can apply to a god, you can also apply to a cosmos: i.e. something outside the known universe (multiverse theory)).

Let's assume that the creation of our universe started with the creation of life (it most obviously did not, but for the sake of the example we will). We will label the cause of life B, and the creation of life A. Therefore, we say that the cause of A, that is, the cause of life, is God. However, let's use a more probable scenario. Let's say that the creation of our universe started with the big bang, C. Than the cause of big bang, D, is God. Scientists and creationists alike can agree that there is a God, but the main debate is surrounded around the attributes of God.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

God has the same problems that the cosmos has: infinite regression.

This is a problem that occurs in our universe. Since God is not in effect, that is, God is not composed of parts that make up our universe (as parts cannot self-configure), than God would similarily not be subject to the same laws.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

At some point, you must satisfy the question of what created the god? Since there's no good reason to believe in such a thing, there's no good reason to interject "god did it" every time we don't know the answer.

We do not say that God did most of it, but rather is the cause of the very beginning of our universe. In fact, God did almost nothing.

Prometheus,
I appreciate your opinion in my thread.

Ah, but I said "cosmos" not universe. There is at least as much reason to suspect that there is a grander cosmos in which our universe (and perhaps others, past and present) exist as there is that there is a god. In fact, if there is one god in the universe (or cosmos), then could be an infinite number of gods. That, too, is a possibility.

It's also possible that our universe is but a single successful result of an infinite number of other variously successful and unsuccessful chain of expansions and collapses of universes that have been going on for an infinite period of time (even though "time" wouldn't be applicable prior to or after any one instance of our known universe.

There simply isn't any good reason to assume a god is at work simply because we're ignorant (and, in particular, not any of the thousands upon thousands of extant and extinct gods that man has invented).

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Ah, but I said "cosmos" not universe. There is at least as much reason to suspect that there is a grander cosmos in which our universe (and perhaps others, past and present) exist as there is that there is a god.

What exactly differentiates a universe from a cosmos? I was under the impression that they were two terms, one a noun, and the other a theoretical perspecitve of the other. That is, they have a principle of cohesion. Regardless, my statement still applies: we consider god the creator of reality, and our reality may be established to be the universe we live in. Than, the creator of the universe (or the subsequent events that led to the creation of the universe) can be defined as God. However, since God is not an element of our universe, than God should similarily not be subject to the same logical requirements necessary to exist in our universe.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

In fact, if there is one god in the universe (or cosmos), then could be an infinite number of gods. That, too, is a possibility.

But one with no evidence. I would rather oblige to rational theism rather than arational theism. I would be interested in discussing this issue with you in another thread, but at the moment I'm more interested in establishing both our views as those of theism (or, rather, in your cause using the possibility of arational theism as a form of satire against religious arguments).

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

It's also possible that our universe is but a single successful result of an infinite number of other variously successful and unsuccessful chain of expansions and collapses of universes that have been going on for an infinite period of time (even though "time" wouldn't be applicable prior to or after any one instance of our known universe.

No, it is not possible. Let A be the causation of B, and let B be the causation of C. According to your argument, C would have to be causation of A. However, without B, there would be no cause for C. And so causation loops cannot exist. However, you largely take into account this issue methodically by suggesting that these events of the universe continually collapsing as infinite. However, this point has already been taken into account for by philosophers: infinite causation chains do not exist. There must always be a beginning.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

There simply isn't any good reason to assume a god is at work simply because we're ignorant (and, in particular, not any of the thousands upon thousands of extant and extinct gods that man has invented).

God is the cause of our reality (the world we live in). This is not a point made in an attempt to say that "God did this, or that, because we don't know the answer." God is established on a set of philosophical principles that imply God's existence (note that I'm intentionally avoiding the use of such terms as "he" or "she," as I don't claim to know such trivial questions into God's being).

You're making a circular argument. You're saying the universe and the cosmos it (and ostensibly other universes reside) need a cause but a god doesn't. You haven't defined a god or said why this god doesn't need a cause. If your god(s) don't need causes, it follows that something (a god) can exist without a cause. Therefore a cosmos can exist without a god.

Saying "god is outside the universe" really is a cop-out of great proportions.

Particular when you pretend that multiple gods can't exist without evidence. Hello! A singular god has no evidence! They are equally valid and equally preposterous.

There simply is no good reason to put forth the existence of one (or multiple gods) since a cosmos can exist without a cause as easily as a god.

Answer what created the god before I carry on any further with your circular (thus fallacious) argument.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

You're making a circular argument.

No.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

You're saying the universe and the cosmos it (and ostensibly other universes reside) need a cause but a god doesn't.

Yes, and I have explained why.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

You haven't defined a god or said why this god doesn't need a cause.

I have defined god several times throughout my last post and explained why God doesn't need a cause as well.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

If your god(s) don't need causes, it follows that something (a god) can exist without a cause. Therefore a cosmos can exist without a god.

Everything within the "cosmos" (which is just a point-of-view of the universe), and the cosmos itself have a cause. God is not an internal part of the cosmos, but rather an external creator. Therefore, God is not subject to the same laws within the cosmos.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Saying "god is outside the universe" really is a cop-out of great proportions.

No. It's a statement based on very simple logic that anyone with an open-mind can understand; certainly not the likes of devout atheists or agnostics, however.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Particular when you pretend that multiple gods can't exist without evidence.

I never "preten[ded] that muliple gods can't exist without evidence." I simply provided a philosophical argument for the existence for at least one God. This is the viewpoint of a rational theist. An arational theist chooses to believe perspectives that have no evidence supporting or unsupporting them (such as your multiple Gods suggestion).

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Hello! A singular god has no evidence! They are equally valid and equally preposterous.

See the entire branch of ontology.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

There simply is no good reason to put forth the existence of one (or multiple gods) since a cosmos can exist without a cause as easily as a god.

Nothing within the cosmos and the cosmos itself cannot have a cause. For example, the cause of evolution are the existence of chromosomes, selection, and frequency distribution. The cause of chromosomes is the existence of DNA, the cause of selection is the existence of certain traits being better suited for an environment than others, and the cause of frequency distribution is probability theory. One can go on for very long indeed. However, the point is that infinite causal chains cannot exist, nor can causal loops, therefore there must have been a first cause external to the system that resulted in its ultimate (or at least penultimate) creation.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Answer what created the god before I carry on any further with your circular (thus fallacious) argument.

Understand the definition of circular and the cosmological argument and than I will perhaps answer your questions if they are well thought out.

Just to give a historical perspective: Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was the first to postulate the causal argument for god, although Plato and Aristotle had expressed similar ideas without recourse to a god being the uncaused cause. It was originally based on the idea that the natural state of motion is rest. This was proven not so by Sir Isaac Newton. The argument changes to accommodate this, and other, knowledge to the argument now presented.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Saying "god is outside the universe" really is a cop-out of great proportions.

Arthur Schopenhauer thought similarly. If, as Ellatha believes, everything has a cause and then go on to say God is the cause of everything but himself has no cause you have contradicted yourself. This is very basic logic. If everything has a cause and God has no cause then the premise everything has a cause is obviously wrong for we have found something without a cause. We must therefore conclude not everything has a cause. If everything really does have a cause then so must god. Schopenhauer compares this argument to a taxi - theists will use it to take them where they want then abandon it when it suits them.

But let us for a moment accept this logical fallacy and say everything but god has a cause. If god had no cause, was he the cause of himself? We come to the causa sui argument - which Ellatha rejects below. Fair enough. Then God has no beginning? Ellatha, you have also rejected this below by stating there must always be a beginning. Unless, as i fear, god is also exempt from these criticisms because he is somehow not of the universe. We have therefore proven Schopenhauer right, theists will define their god in any way possible so it fits facts and reason. The problem becomes that the concept of god gets thinner and thinner until it is just an empty concept with no repercussions (no repercussions because god is exempt from this and that).

Originally Posted by Ellatha

However, this point has already been taken into account for by philosophers: infinite causation chains do not exist

Which philosophers say this? I doubt there is consensus.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

The cause of chromosomes is the existence of DNA...

What is your definition of causation? It's far murkier than i first thought - John Stuart Mill and Hume give the best accounts which underpin current scientific interpretation of the causal principle. For instance, DNA is not a sufficient cause for chromosomes - that is, in itself DNA is not enough to cause chromosomes. But DNA is a necessary cause for chromosomes - without DNA chromosomes could not exist.

Ellatha - is your definition of god simply the creator of reality?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Just to give a historical perspective: Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was the first to postulate the causal argument for god, although Plato and Aristotle had expressed similar ideas without recourse to a god being the uncaused cause. It was originally based on the idea that the natural state of motion is rest. This was proven not so by Sir Isaac Newton. The argument changes to accommodate this, and other, knowledge to the argument now presented.

What does this have to do with anything? The cosmological argument was excepted by excellent philosophers such as Leibniz. Any reformations of it do not manipulate the argument at all; simply restate it in other terminology to account for atheists that present such poor argumnets as you have presented. I find your opinion on the "history" of the cosmological argument rather subject to criticism, especially since I think you just looked it up before making this post in an attempt to downplay it.

The cosmological argument was first set forth by Greek philosophers such as Plato and later Aristotle. In his first paper in mathematics Gottfried Wilhem von Leibniz wrote the cosmological argument on his paper before providing formulas for combinatorics (Leibniz also developed calculus independently of Newton). Rene Descartes (who was perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time) would later go on improvise the cosmological argument. Since than, William Lane Craig would go on to provide a stylized version of the argument, kown as the Kalam cosmological argument (it's less precise in its argument for god, but still contains the main principles of the original).

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If, as Ellatha believes, everything has a cause and then go on to say God is the cause of everything but himself has no cause you have contradicted yourself. This is very basic logic. If everything has a cause and God has no cause then the premise everything has a cause is obviously wrong for we have found something without a cause.

Except we don't say that everything has a cause. We say that everything within the cosmos has a cause. The whole point of the cosmological argument is to prove that God is the first cause outside of the universe; that is, that something in the universe could not have been the beginning of it (since causal loops cannot exist, as I've already demonstrated in the previous reply to Skinwalker), so something outside of the universe would have had to create it.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

We must therefore conclude not everything has a cause. If everything really does have a cause then so must god. Schopenhauer compares this argument to a taxi - theists will use it to take them where they want then abandon it when it suits them.

No.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But let us for a moment accept this logical fallacy and say everything but god has a cause. If god had no cause, was he the cause of himself? We come to the causa sui argument - which Ellatha rejects below. Fair enough. Then God has no beginning? Ellatha, you have also rejected this below by stating there must always be a beginning.

No; I said that everything within the universe has a beginning.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Unless, as i fear, god is also exempt from these criticisms because he is somehow not of the universe. We have therefore proven Schopenhauer right, theists will define their god in any way possible so it fits facts and reason. The problem becomes that the concept of god gets thinner and thinner until it is just an empty concept with no repercussions (no repercussions because god is exempt from this and that).

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Which philosophers say this? I doubt there is consensus.

The statement that infinite causal chains cannot exist is one of the statements of the cosmological argument.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

What is your definition of causation? It's far murkier than i first thought - John Stuart Mill and Hume give the best accounts which underpin current scientific interpretation of the causal principle. For instance, DNA is not a sufficient cause for chromosomes - that is, in itself DNA is not enough to cause chromosomes. But DNA is a necessary cause for chromosomes - without DNA chromosomes could not exist.

Causation is merely the cause of something. I was being somewhat loose with my interpretation of chromosomes being the cause for DNA, but at least in eukaryotic cells they allow it to be contained within the nucleus.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Ellatha - is your definition of god simply the creator of reality?

The creator of the universe and therefore everything in it (so yes).

If both Skinwalker and Prometheus want to debate the existence of God, your best bet is to stop looking for "criticisms" and other such flaws in the cosmological argument and actual philosophical arguments. Thus far, the best philosophical arguments against the existence of God are the evil arguments; e.g., if we define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being, than why is there evil in the universe? I would take such arguments much more seriously than those brought up thus far, which have been rather poor to say the least.

Right. We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Let's start again.

The historical perspective? Sorry if i came across pretentious. Just thought some might find it interesting. I had never heard of the Kalam cosmological argument, so I at least learnt something new.

May I suggest a refinement to the question - and in so doing address the original question regarding omnipotence and omniscience. For the cosmological argument there has to be something outside of time: 'everything that has a beginning in time has a cause'. You choose to call it God. However, there is no other indication to any attributes such a god would have other than being outside time in this model alone. I don't know enough about the anthropic principle to comment, other than the suggestion that neuroscience teaches us our perception of the world is not simply a reflection of the true state of the world. Therefore, for the sake of myself, i would be more comfortable if we spoke not of God, but of a first cause or uncaused cause which does not have the same negative connotations in my mind, allowing us to focus on the cosmological argument itself.

Fallacy of Composition: Betrand Russel argues that there exists an assumption in the cosmological argument by saying contingency of the components of the universe does not necessarily mean contingency of the universe itself. If the universe as a whole is not contingent then we do not need to explain its existence, just the particulars in it - which leads to the next objection.

Explaining the Individual Constituents Is Sufficient: Hume argued that explaining the particulars would be enough to explain the whole. It developed after to include the Principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy; matter and energy are not destroyed but change to one another. As indestructible they are all necessary beings - no need to make another necessary being in a first cause. I guess this touches on the infinite regress. Why cannot an infinite causal chain exist? This is personally my primary reason for rejecting the cosmological argument.

The Causal Principle is Suspect: This is why I asked a definition for causality. The principle certainly appears to be true in our day-to-day lives. The criticism comes from saying that the principle is true a priori , i.e. the causal principle itself is unfalsifiable.

The Conclusion is Contradictory: This depends on people attributing maximal excellence (as Kant put it) to the first cause (i.e. god). If you accepted my above suggestion of avoiding the term God, we don't need to go into this argument.

And yes, i had to look most of this up, i studied philosophy a while back and never formally so these arguments aren't at the forefront of my mind.

this whole argument is faulty because it assumes that cause and effect works outside of time as well.
but as Einstein proved, with the theory of relativity, time is a property, a DIMENSION of our universe. outside our universe, there is no time.
cause and effect is dependent on time. a cause will always come BEFORE an effect.
however, with the big bang time itself was created. so talking about "before" the big bang is nonsensical. and so talking about the CAUSE of the big bang is nonsensical too.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

this whole argument is faulty because it assumes that cause and effect works outside of time as well.
but as Einstein proved, with the theory of relativity, time is a property, a DIMENSION of our universe. outside our universe, there is no time.

Einstein proposed a theory (that's been supported by empirical evidence) that time is the fourth-dimension of the space-time continuum. He did not prove that "outside of our universe, there is no time."

Originally Posted by dejawolf

cause and effect is dependent on time. a cause will always come BEFORE an effect.
however, with the big bang time itself was created. so talking about "before" the big bang is nonsensical. and so talking about the CAUSE of the big bang is nonsensical too.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, it explains its expansion. Unfortunately for your suggestion, expansion can occur even at infinitesimally small number (so it doesn't explain how the universe began from nothing, that is size zero, to a real number greater than zero, rather how it expands from a potentially small originality).

Secondly, consider the following scenario: a cup falls off of a table, it falls towards the ground, and upon impact shatters. What is the interval of time required for the kinetic energy of the falling cup to be transferred to the ground upon impact? The answer is none, that is it occurs instantly. So from a conceptual standpoint we must place cause before effect. However, in terms of the interval of time they occur, the answer is simultaneously. This applies to our world as well.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, it explains its expansion. Unfortunately for your suggestion, expansion can occur even at infinitesimally small number (so it doesn't explain how the universe began from nothing, that is size zero, to a real number greater than zero, rather how it expands from a potentially small originality).

i've been working on this idea, that outside of the universe, there is space, but not time. the application of time to this space causes the space to exist.
there's evidence that a single dimension of space transforms into a dimension of time, for very short intervals.
i'd think the big bang was simply applying time to space, to cause it to exist.
similarly elements popping in and out of existence at the quantum level would be space receiving and losing the dimension of time.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

Originally Posted by Ellatha

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, it explains its expansion. Unfortunately for your suggestion, expansion can occur even at infinitesimally small number (so it doesn't explain how the universe began from nothing, that is size zero, to a real number greater than zero, rather how it expands from a potentially small originality).

i've been working on this idea, that outside of the universe, there is space, but not time. the application of time to this space causes the space to exist.
there's evidence that a single dimension of space transforms into a dimension of time, for very short intervals.
i'd think the big bang was simply applying time to space, to cause it to exist.
similarly elements popping in and out of existence at the quantum level would be space receiving and losing the dimension of time.

I disagree. I view time as passing moments, and I think that it exists everywhere. Since time is required for subsequent actions to occur, than without time there would be no motion (along with many other things [more specifically all physical concepts that rely on the existence of motion, e.g., momentum, kinetic energy, velocity, impulse, trajectory, etc...]). Since the universe expands continuously (theoretically), than it would suggest that the possibility of motion exists outside of the universe as well (at least, in some respects), therefore implying the existence of time outside of the universe. On the other hand, another argument might suggest that there is no space outside of the universe, while still retaining the existence of time.

Regardless, such a discussion would be more appropriately addressed in the physics sub-forum than this thread.

[quote="Ellatha"][quote="dejawolf"]

Originally Posted by Ellatha

I disagree. I view time as passing moments, and I think that it exists everywhere. Since time is required for subsequent actions to occur, than without time there would be no motion (along with many other things [more specifically all physical concepts that rely on the existence of motion, e.g., momentum, kinetic energy, velocity, impulse, trajectory, etc...]). Since the universe expands continuously (theoretically), than it would suggest that the possibility of motion exists outside of the universe as well (at least, in some respects), therefore implying the existence of time outside of the universe. On the other hand, another argument might suggest that there is no space outside of the universe, while still retaining the existence of time.

Regardless, such a discussion would be more appropriately addressed in the physics sub-forum than this thread.

well, the way the particles when losing a dimension of space, is only temporarily converted to time, would suggest that time is a higher state than space, and more difficult to maintain than matter.
also to me, and in my opinion, physical matter seems to be related to space, and time to energy. after all, it is the movement of something that gives something energy, and movement needs a dimension of time to work.
an object can have mass and size, but without time, it is unable to interact with anything.

but yeh, probably best to discuss it in physics forum.

If life requires Life before it to exist then so all the more would Life require LIFE behind it. One must always carry through with the premise, not prematurely halt, and all of the sudden drop it like a hot potato, which I guess it would surely be. Also, complexity is in the complete opposite direction, which could not be any further off from the simple. It's not opposite day, and never is.

Nice to meet you guys and gynos.

Here again is the kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, is the first premise self-evident?

In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. When an atom emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world. There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is thus deader than a doornail.

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation.

The kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning. All is thus as it would be if there were no God.

Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. That realm is causeless.

Originally Posted by questor

Nice to meet you guys and gynos.

Here again is the kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, is the first premise self-evident?

In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. When an atom emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world. There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is thus deader than a doornail.

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation.

The kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning. All is thus as it would be if there were no God.

Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. That realm is causeless.

Quantum mechanics does not explain causation. Loosely speaking, quantum mechanics is the cause for stochastic motion throughout the universe.

Yes, there does seem to be randomness as observed, although half the time I wonder if there can really be any such thing. So, keeping my options open, I try to travel both paths for now and am redying a post for my 'First Philosophy' thread to show that the universe operates with infinite precision (determinism).

I wrote a paper on determinism and freewill in the past and offered a philosophical explanation of it in light of quantum mechanics. If you are interested in the paper let me know and I will post it or message it to you via personal message.

Yes, post. It would seem that our decisions must always depend on our memories, associations, learnings, etc., right up to the moment of 'choice'; can't really see how and 'random' could enter in as any kind of miniature first cause based on nothing.

Originally Posted by questor

Yes, post. It would seem that our decisions must always depend on our memories, associations, learnings, etc., right up to the moment of 'choice'; can't really see how and 'random' could enter in as any kind of miniature first cause based on nothing.

well, as stated before, cause and effect relies on the dimension of time to work.
without time there's no before and after. randomness works perfectly in an environment without time. when there's no time, cause and effect breaks down,
before no longer precede after, and randomness takes over.

imho, when time is applied to space, the randomness ceases, and instead we get an orderly universe that follows cause and effect.

How about that if there's no change, then time does not pass, so nothing happens, not even random.


A true 'random' would have to be some kind of first cause, depending on nothing at all.

Some people would then be air-heads, but then again…

The Other Shoe Drops

Determinism doesn’t sit well, at first; its flavor does not quench the thirst, for then it seems we but do as we must, but, we’ll see a way that in this we’ll trust. We wish that our thoughts reflect us today, our leanings, for it could be no other way.

To know, let us turn to the random say to see whatever could make its day. Shifting to this other, neglected foot, what could make the random take root? It would have no cause beneath to explain it events, they becoming of the insane. We could pretend, imitating air-heads, posting nonsense on purpose in the threads, but that then we meant to do this way, noting history, too, so random holds not its sway.

There’s less problem of a determined nature than the same in our individual nature, but, sense isn’t made from random direction that relies on naught beneath its conception. Would we wish it to be any other way? Doing any old thing of chance that may?

The random foot then walks but here and there, not getting anywhere, born from nowhere. The unrooted tree lives magically, unfathomed. Is not then randomness but a fun phantom? The opposite of ‘determined’ is ‘undetermined’, the scarier ghost that’s never-minded.