Logically rationalize God

[Investigator]

No, I just recognise that the whole of existence having a cause is ultimately unfalsifiable.



Seeing no reason to make a conclusion about something which appears to be indeterminable does NOT imply that I think the universe had no cause.



If it is not falsifiable, there is no reason to disbelieve OR believe.

Ahhh, but saying there is no reason would be a gross exaggeration. Science itself presupposes the principle of sufficient reason(PSP).

What's crazy to me personally is that you would sit here and argue against it. PSP being false would mean that our cognitive abilities would be unreliable and I couldn't trust your reason for it being false in the first place which is a lose-lose argument.

That's besides the point. The biggest arguments against PSP have been reductio ad absurdum. There are arguments from a chance-based reality perspective (because I know you guys love pointing to quantum mechanics). However, nothing in Quantum Mechanics points to a flaw in the weak principle of causality. Whether quantum mechanics accepts causality entirely also depends on the interpretation. So pointing to Quantum Mechanics would not be a strong argument against the universe being without cause.

Edit: Btw, I apologize for calling principle of sufficient reason "PSP" instead of PSR. I always renamed it "principle of sufficient purpose" in my head (haha).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Ahhh, but saying there is no reason would be a gross exaggeration. Science itself presupposes the principle of sufficient reason(PSP).

No it doesn't. There is no such rule.

The law of conservation of energy says that in an isolated system, energy remains constant. The laws of thermodynamics state that in an isolated system, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe can only have a cause if is not an isolated system. But if that is true, then the universe does not represent the whole - which in my understanding of what is meant by universe is contrary to its definition.

[Metamorph]

No it doesn't. There is no such rule.

The law of conservation of energy says that in an isolated system, energy remains constant. The laws of thermodynamics state that in an isolated system, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe can only have a cause if is not an isolated system. But if that is true, then the universe does not represent the whole - which in my understanding of what is meant by universe is contrary to its definition.

The Universe can have a cause within the Universe if you invoke microcosm/macrocosm type principles but the cause itself would be subject to causality since it'd be inside the Universe.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The Universe can have a cause within the Universe if you invoke microcosm/macrocosm type principles but the cause itself would be subject to causality since it'd be inside the Universe.

For all I know, time may not be linear or may not even exist.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

That's besides the point. The biggest arguments against PSP have been reductio ad absurdum. There are arguments from a chance-based reality perspective (because I know you guys love pointing to quantum mechanics). However, nothing in Quantum Mechanics points to a flaw in the weak principle of causality. Whether quantum mechanics accepts causality entirely also depends on the interpretation. So pointing to Quantum Mechanics would not be a strong argument against the universe being without cause.

It is impossible to determine whether "everything happens by chance" or according to some universal laws without knowing if we are in an isolated system. But I do not see how we could exist in an endless chain of open systems, or at least, it has been useful so far to act as though everything is deterministic.