First Cause

[Bozo Erectus]

In the reality of god, there are no beginings or endings. Alpha and Omega are one, and completely indistinguishable one from the other.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Unless you believe that there is a permanent, infinite, fundamental organizing principle or force to existence, you will be forever looking for a first cause: a chain of begats reminicent of the lineage of Jesus. Once you accept such a principle though, the "first cause" of the universe becomes an easy step. Whether you call such a thing primal source, god, darkest matter, the void, paramatma, allah, pink teacup, Alanis Morrisette or strings, makes no difference. The source is the same. If it is first and original to existence then it must have certain chacterisitcs. If it doesn't then it cannot be first or fundamental or permanent and you are back to the begats. You (or your church or other organization) can put any kind of spin on it, that you want; you can add all kinds of attributes that make you feel comfortable, but a rose by anyother name is still a rose.

How you characterize the act of creation is another personal decision. Whether you choose Big Bang, Om point, six days on the job, one day off, spontaneous ignition or chunky hurl, the source of the universe is still the same.

The third part of the process is how your behavior is determined by whatever you characterize the primal source to be. The attributes you apply to such a thing says more about you than it does about "it".

 

[Birdjaguar]

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".

Choosing a science path to explain the origin of the universe leads you down a road that involves testing and verification based on evidence. Scientific evidence points away from a steady state universe and towards the big bang. Find evidence to the contrary and you can win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

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!

I am an atheist too and I don't think it is a particularly interesting question to figure out whether there was a first cause or not.
There are a lot of phylosophical questions for which we have no satisfactory solution, but that does not imply that that a religius solution is correct. Religious solutions (at least Roman Catholic religius solutions) are just a "plug", they are not an explanation, they just say "this is it". While the contary might well be true.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am an atheist too and I don't think it is a particularly interesting question to figure out whether there was a first cause or not.
There are a lot of phylosophical questions for which we have no satisfactory solution, but that does not imply that that a religius solution is correct. Religious solutions (at least Roman Catholic religius solutions) are just a "plug", they are not an explanation, they just say "this is it". While the contary might well be true.

Of course you don't like the question; it is the single question that calls your atheism into question. Any answer that implies a first cause weakens your position. So, don't ask the question, maybe it will go away.


In truth, a first cause could be very scientific and religiously neutral. While not having such a thing is a difficult and endless search. BTW don't confuse churches with religion. Churches are human attempts to manifest religious ideas.

 

[Blasphemous]

I'll answer it as an atheist/agnostic:

I don't know. Is do not pretend to know. I am also not sure that time and matter "began".

I would say the same.
A beginning just doesn't seem to make sense to me, and neither does simple "infinity". It seems to me more likely that somehow it is all arranged in a loop, space and time, so it seems finite in some ways in infinite in others and has no start and no end but is still not infinite in actuality. If it's so, we will be able to see what we once thought of as the start, from the other side and in the universe's final days before recreation, we would finally know how it all works.
But I highly doubt we'll ever find out otherwise.

I would say at least it seems fairly certain that there is something beyond the universe (the events causing the universe would be the evidence). There could be a larger universe type entity (or entities) or another thing (s). I would consider that in a like manner that humans have found that there are things beyond earth there are things beyond the universe. It is reasonable to expect to see or find things out there.

I doubt having anything outside the universe will make this a simpler matter... The outer thing would have to also have had a start or something. At some point we would have to have either a loop or a "just is" type thing that has no beginning and no end, or an uncaused cause to a finite span.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Aye, it may never be solved.

I agree in the sense that the issue will probably still be debated in some fashion probably when all the posters here are in (or once were in....) their eighties.

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

I can invision infinite existance as being true. I find the infinite regress of events much harder to invision since there are many unsolved problems that seem to be quite serious left open. I admit that sometimes I use peculiar jargon. I will continue to refine my views.

 

[Neomega]

Of course you don't like the question; it is the single question that calls your atheism into question. Any answer that implies a first cause weakens your position. So, don't ask the question, maybe it will go away.

How so? If first cause were proven tomorrow, how would that prove the existance of a God?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

A first cause is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the existance of God.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

How so? If first cause were proven tomorrow, how would that prove the existance of a God?

How could a first cause possibly be indistinguishable from god?

 

[Neomega]

Choosing a science path to explain the origin of the universe leads you down a road that involves testing and verification based on evidence. Scientific evidence points away from a steady state universe and towards the big bang. Find evidence to the contrary and you can win a Nobel Prize.

Some evidence would be that the farther we look, the more universe we see.

Now the ouskirts of the universe, and it's estimated age, just increased tenfold, about 3 or 4 months ago.

When I am eighty, it very well may be found to be 1000 times bigger.

Of course, if there is no boundary, there can never be an affirmation of an edge, or finiteness of the universe.

 

[Neomega]

How could a first cause possibly be indistinguishable from god?

It could be the pink teacup.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Neomega, of course this universe has a beginning, but what does that have to do with god?

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Of course you don't like the question; it is the single question that calls your atheism into question. Any answer that implies a first cause weakens your position. So, don't ask the question, maybe it will go away.

Oh no, there are tons of questions that weaken my position. I think it would be foolish to think that you have to have answers for everything to be an atheist. I see atheism as "the most satisfactory" position given the limited understanding we have, rather than "the ultimate answer" to everything.
A question is not necessarily interesting because it is difficult. A question could be useful to disprove a position (e.g. to disprove atheism), if we could give a convincing answer to it, but we can't give a convincing asnwer to this question. Questions to which we don't have a convincing answers are uninteresting to me. Of course, there are people (physicists) paid to study this question and other people paid to study other difficult questions for which we have no good answer at the moment and that's good for them; once they have found the answer, they can let me know. If they don't find the answer, that's fine too.

 

[Neomega]

Neomega, of course this universe has a beginning, but what does that have to do with god?

What makes you so sure the universe has a beginning?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It could be the pink teacup.

I dont think god is a pink teacup, but if he(it) is, who am I to say nay?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What makes you so sure the universe has a beginning?

The rules of this universe are very clear: everything has a beginning and an end.

 

[Neomega]

The rules of this universe are very clear: everything has a beginning and an end.

I am sorry, I missed that rule.... could you point it out to me?

Is it written on a giant gold tablet, and stored in Alexandria?

Perhaps it is one of Einsteins obscure equations?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Some evidence would be that the farther we look, the more universe we see. Now the ouskirts of the universe, and it's estimated age, just increased tenfold, about 3 or 4 months ago.

But it is expanding, and I believe accelerating its expansion. And unless you believe in miracles, the universe must obey it's own laws. Steady state does not fit with what we know.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How so? If first cause were proven tomorrow, how would that prove the existance of a God?

We are back to defining god and whose definition you choose to use. If there is a most fundamental, most basic, undifferentiated source, then we get to fight over whose description is correct and not whether or not it exists.