First Cause

[bobgote]

Indeed, I can accept the possibilty of no beginning.

60 septillion years from now, I'll put down my harp, and be like, "Hey, Bob, this eternity sure is long isn't it?"

and i'd say "yep, it sure is. and i didn't say you could put down that harp!" and then i'd poke you in the butt with my pitchfork again.

 

[Neomega]

and i'd say "yep, it sure is. and i didn't say you could put down that harp!" and then i'd poke you in the butt with my pitchfork again.

And I'd grumble something about I thought they were supposed to play harps in heaven. Who knew someone got it backwards, and in Heaven they have unlimited Beer and babes in bikinis.

 

[King Alexander]

That is an incorrect and far too stereotypical view of religion. there are many of us who consider it as God's purpose for us to seek knowledge and understanding of what he's done.

Well, one could say that "God's purpose for us to seek knowledge and understanding" it's a theory from some religionists to intepret God's will and go inside his mind, because, I don't see how God told them to do so.

Is there a way ever that people will stop trying to get inside "God's mind" and intepret his will and the Bible the way they want? - Nope.

Your apparent understanding of religion is medieval. The church has changed since then.

My understanding of religion is indeed medieval, because religion is medieval.
The church hasn't changed at all; it's just that people took away it's authority from acting like a goverment and restrained it where it belongs.

EDIT: Anyway, we got a bit off topic, so I'll continue with the thread's topic.

Religion claims that God always existed.
- what did he do, sitting around alone? Why did he decided to create the universe, I mean, what he were thinking? Why did he created the humans, to keep him company and worship him? Why did he do all the previous?

 

[bobgote]

And I'd grumble something about I thought they were supposed to play harps in heaven. Who knew someone got it backwards, and in Heaven they have unlimited Beer and babes in bikinis.

Heaven on earth baby!
:aus

@King Alexander: As this conversation is going off topic, i'll leave it there. Feel free to start up a thread to discuss this further.

 

[Plotinus]

Since I said the universe operates under known laws (the scientific laws) and you called the post “nonsense” I will have to consider apparently you disagree with this which is quite odd (you did not make clear any in sense to what extent you disagree so I cannot tell which part(s) you reject).

Your logic is flawed, because you are playing on an ambiguity on the word "universe".

On the one hand, we do believe that all events *within* the universe have causes. That's because every event that we investigate has been found to have a cause. Therefore it seems reasonable to extrapolate further and say that all events have causes. Furthermore, it seems that our minds are so constituted that we simply cannot imagine an event without a cause. Kant showed this.

Assuming that we are right to believe that all events within the universe have a cause, however, it does not follow that *the universe itself* has a cause. This is because the number of (observable) universes is exactly one. We have not had the opportunity to look at a number of universes and see whether *they* are caused or not.

To put it like this: suppose I have studied trees, and I know that every tree I have seen grew from a seed. Now I see another tree. It is not unreasonable for me to suppose that it, too, grew from a seed. But suppose I have never seen a tree before. I find a tree. Did it grow from a seed? I have no idea, because I don't know the usual way that trees come about.

Science works by looking at different phenomena and trying to see patterns in them. You can't find a pattern in a sample of one. That's why science doesn't study samples of one. One of the key criteria for a scientific experiment is that it be repeatable - other scientists could replicate your experiment and see if they get the same results as you. But you can't do that with the universe.

What would you claim happened if the universe was not caused by events? If you cannot provide a better explanation than it was caused then that will be a fair paradigm to accept as reasonable. It is not necessary to always make no hypothesis whatsoever in every case where every detail is not known. I simply state that it seems quite reasonable that the universe is caused rather than uncaused.

So this is why I would reject this statement. It is no more reasonable to say that the universe is caused than that it is uncaused, because we are not entitled to shift conclusions about *objects within the universe* to *the universe as a whole*. It's a different *kind* of thing. It's like going to a hotel and noticing that everyone in it wears trousers. Would you therefore be justified in assuming that the hotel itself wears trousers?

Will you say the universe is potentially not governed by known scientific laws? Also, will you or will you not argue it somehow can avoid the casual chain of events that has always been seen so far?

So then, it seems that the universe is governed by scientific laws IN THE SENSE THAT there are laws within the universe that apparently govern the objects within the universe. But it does not follow that the universe is governed by scientific laws IN THE SENSE THAT the universe itself, as a whole, is subject to the same laws that govern its contents. This is the ambiguity at the heart of your argument.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Why? Because everything within the universe exhibits cause and effect?

The infinite regress of events would contradict itself so the probability would seem to be lower than the alternatives. The main alternative that so far seems useful is that there is an uncaused cause.

If it "always" has been, then that defies your own parameters.

So either things have "always" followed cause and effect or they have not. Either way it is a catch 22, because the always implies no beginning for cause and effect, therefore cause and effect itself has no beginning.

One you start talking about an uncaused cause the there would be a good canidate for the source of the laws and the origin of the casual chain be set up as a rule. It is not contradictory. I would not say have to say that it “always” has been. The casual link would have to have been a result of some type of initial process. So it does not seem that there is any “catch 22” present. To explain how the uncaused cause would be able to act without the casual link existing at that period in time would one have to examine the properties of the uncaused cause.

 

[Neomega]

The infinite regress of events would contradict itself so the probability would seem to be lower than the alternatives.

Contradict itself, what is your reasoning for this? Where is the contradiction?

The main alternative that so far seems useful is that there is an uncaused cause.

???? How so? What makes it "more useful?" There is no logic to this. You are spouting a bunch of nonsense, you do realize this don't you? You sound like a magician quoting metaphysical text. If I didn't know better I would think you were joking.

One you start talking about an uncaused cause the there would be a good canidate for the source of the laws and the origin of the casual chain be set up as a rule. It is not contradictory. I would not say have to say that it “always” has been. The casual link would have to have been a result of some type of initial process. So it does not seem that there is any “catch 22” present. To explain how the uncaused cause would be able to act without the casual link existing at that period in time would one have to examine the properties of the uncaused cause.

This whole thing is chicken and egg re-worded, and filled with strings of circular logic and logical fallacies. It has no merit, it sets parameters, wanders around aimlessly in metaphysical mumbo jumbo, and then later breaks it's own parameters, and thinks it has discovered something.

And I have never seen an "uncaused cause" have you? So once again this breaks these basic premises of universal laws. For there to be a first cause, something had to come from nothing. This is against all observed "nature" so far, and your first premise that cause and effect are undeniable rules. So are you going to make an exception to the foundation of the absoluteness of cause and effect, to allow in an "uncaused cause"? As soon as you do that, the argument falls apart, because cause and effect are no longer the sacred beacon form which all other logic in this argument flows.

So supposedly, there have been 600 quadrillion hundred septillion effects, 600 quadrillion hundred septillion causes, and one uncaused cause.

When ever talking cause and effect, a piece of time is pulled out for the observation, and then put in. The cause is observed first, but that cause was actually just the effect of the pevious cause. We just happen to make a cut-off point, and name the first step cause in our set of parameters "original cause." Then after the last effect we observe, we take our string of events, and put it back in the timeline.

Every cause is merely the effect of the previous cause.

 

[Jorge]

Before you start typing your post about what a religionist nut I am, I would like to point out that I'm an atheist, and this is just a question out of curiosity.


How do atheists get around the concept of first cause? I was discussing theology with someone recently and they brought that up, and I shamefully couldn't think of a good explanation!

You don't need to have an explanation for that.

If you admit the fact that there are many things that we don't know, first cause is just one of them. Not having an explanation for it is the logical thing to do. Inventing one (no matter how much sense it makes) is not logical.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Indeed. If God was there, who created Him ? How had he been created ? From where does He come from ?

God created himself. God is outside of time, and what we call 'cause and effect'.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Contradict itself, what is your reasoning for this? Where is the contradiction?

If everyone event has a cause then that would contradict an infinite regress since the problem would never be solved. The problem (what causes each event) would simply keep getting pushed back without resolution. That is not really a legitimate solution.

And I have never seen an "uncaused cause" have you? So once again this breaks these basic premises of universal laws. For there to be a first cause, something had to come from nothing. This is against all observed "nature" so far, and your first premise that cause and effect are undeniable rules. So are you going to make an exception to the foundation of the absoluteness of cause and effect, to allow in an "uncaused cause"?

So supposedly, there have been 600 quadrillion hundred septillion effects, 600 quadrillion hundred septillion causes, and one uncaused cause.

You are starting to twist what my position is. The uncaused cause seems more probable than the idea of an infinite regress of events. The uncaused cause obviously would be an exception to the otherwise known rule. If there is not an exception what other option is there? That I mean by more useful is that it at least can be invisioned as actually being true.

When ever talking cause and effect, a piece of time is pulled out for the observation, and then put in. The cause is observed first, but that cause was actually just the effect of the pevious cause. We just happen to make a cut-off point, and name the first step cause in our set of parameters "original cause." Then after the last effect we observe, we take our string of events, and put it back in the timeline.

Every cause is merely the effect of the previous cause.

The point of the original cause is not known. I do not claim to know when the casual chain started. Despite this it seems that it would make more sense that there is a starting point rather than an endless chain.

 

[Plotinus]

If everyone event has a cause then that would contradict an infinite regress since the problem would never be solved.

Not exactly. These two statements -

(1) Every event has a cause.
(2) There exists a chain of events, each caused by the previous one, with no beginning.

- are perfectly consistent. Every event is caused by the one before it, and so on for ever.

I think that what you are after is not *cause* so much as *explanation*. In the above example, every event within the chain has a cause (by hypothesis). However, the existence of the chain itself is not sufficiently explained.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Plotinus, I think Free Enterprise is saying that an infinite causal chain, stretching forever into the past is less likely than there being a single starting point, which sets the chain in motion. Something thats always lost in these debates is that we attempt to explain god using the rules of our universe. Thats a nonstarter. Doing that will just lead you around in circles. In order to seriously think about god, we have to break ourselves of the habit of thinking that god is contained and constrained within our universe, like we are.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

In order to seriously think about god, we have to break ourselves of the habit of thinking that god is contained and constrained within our universe, like we are.

Emphasis added.

What use can this "not thinking" have?



And on topic. Stating there is a cause for the universe makes you at least a Deist. A Deist says God created the universe then let it run it's course. If you replace God with Cause the meaning stays the same.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Aphex, come on man, you know what I mean! Although I'll say that too much thinking can often lead to more smoke than fire

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Just teasing And I am a greater fan of smoke than fire

 

[Free Enterprise]

Not exactly. These two statements -

(1) Every event has a cause.
(2) There exists a chain of events, each caused by the previous one, with no beginning.

- are perfectly consistent. Every event is caused by the one before it, and so on for ever.

I think that what you are after is not *cause* so much as *explanation*. In the above example, every event within the chain has a cause (by hypothesis). However, the existence of the chain itself is not sufficiently explained.

I will agree with what you said right here. I actually was thinking something along these lines however I have not been posting clearly recently so it may sound like a swirling whirl wind. The infinite regress so far does not seem to cut it in explanatory power. I see it as sort of a dead end theory. I only have seen two options; never anything else. So although there is much unexplained I would say that probably one of the only hypothesis currently available that would be invisionable is that apparently the casual chain started somewhere. I am not trying to provoke anyone into hostility or force anyone to agree with anything.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Just teasing And I am a greater fan of smoke than fire

I hear ya brothuh

 

[Aphex_Twin]

And Pothead, here is a cleaner resize for your avatar. Just add transparency.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And Pothead, here is a cleaner resize for your avatar. Just add transparency.

I couldnt clean it up enough with the transparency, looks better this way I think. You rock dude!

 

[Neomega]

If everyone event has a cause then that would contradict an infinite regress since the problem would never be solved.

Aye, it may never be solved. To be solved it would require a beginning. Doesn't mean one exists.

You are starting to twist what my position is. The uncaused cause seems more probable than the idea of an infinite regress of events. The uncaused cause obviously would be an exception to the otherwise known rule. If there is not an exception what other option is there?

That I mean by more useful is that it at least can be invisioned as actually being true.

More useful? Why cannot an infinite existance be invisioned as being true?

The point of the original cause is not known. I do not claim to know when the casual chain started. Despite this it seems that it would make more sense that there is a starting point rather than an endless chain.

Seems more probable? Since you are bringing a mathematical term into the discussion, how about you give me some numbers, exactly how much more "probabable"? I don't understand why a "big bang" makes more "sense" than "Steady State".