First Cause

Remove all ads!

The beginning of time. The notion that there was an initial 'push' to initiate the Big Bang (or pre-Big Bang stuff, if it exists...whatever...), and that there must have been an intelligence at work to bring this about.

 

P1. Somethings are in motion.

P2. Whatever is moved is moved by another

P3. An infinite series of movers is impossible (no motion without a first mover)

4. Therefore there must be a first mover

 

That is the one that gives me trouble. It involves having an understanding of what it would be like without 'time'---and I don't think that is possible. When I try to do it, what I end up doing is adding another layer of 'time' to my previous 'time', and then just stopping the reel so-to-speak on the nested time. It's more of a visualization trick rather than a real logical avenue---a trick to snap the chain of cause and effects.

 

Simple question. The world and universe came into existence as a result of an act of will, if It describes it, of The Creator.

 

If there truly was something in an infinite nothingness, how could it move? For isn't movement really an increase/decrease in movement between one object and another?

I have trouble seeing how something could come out of nothing, and how something could have no beginning... furthermore, what's the point anyway?

 

I find interesting that people cannot accept the idea of the supernatural but can accept that a big ball of matter just happened to be sitting somewhere in infinity and exploded.

Or the theory that a bunch of chaotic energy was running around and finally got its self together to form the universe.

Explain to me why this makes more sense then believing in a supernatural creator does?

 

Good question, Nakia.

 

The idea of infinite series of causal relationships is unintelligible. All things that operate within the construct of space and time are either in a state of potential action or actual action (it is contradictory for them to exist within both and therefore an invalid argument to assert that objects can exist in both states). For a object to move, it must be moved by another object (simple physics here). Now for an object to move another other object, another object in term must move the mover. The "Third Man" argument takes it from there. Anyway without that first mover, it is impossible for us to have motion because there is no object to turn potential action into actual action. Therefore we need an object that can exist outside of space and time to be able cause action without the need of having something cause the original causer's actions.

 

Meh, all muddling with words.

Whatever is in motion, is in motion. Nothing moves. There is nowhere to move to. There is no cause that sets anything in motion, yet everything moves.

What is time? What is change? What is 'this' that changed to 'that'? Where is the thing that ceases to be when it changes?

People accept all sorts of ideas. Tell me what an idea is without using words, without using language.

I wonder how that applies to quantum mechanics...In fact, I'll let you decide with the help of wikipedia: Uncertainty Principle

What is beyond time and space? What are these things called 'time' and 'space'? Where do you find them?If they are not constructs of the mind and language, then you should be able to point them without using words. Of course it's fun to think about these things but trying to solve them by using conventional ways will lead to an system overload.

 

It's just there. It's always been there. Nothing 'started' it. It never had a beginning. Why do people need there to be a beginning? It's far more feasable that everything was just there, it's always been there.

There was no 'start' of time. There was no period of 'nothing'.

The universe is infinite. There are countless planets in countless systems in countless galaxies. Go in one direction you can keep going in that direction forever untill you hit something and you'll never see the same planet twice.

 

Now I think you are falling to the trap that Iku-Turso refers to. Playing with words.

However I am happy to play.

If the universe always existed then why do we have creation theories? Abomination I think you have just expressed a very interesting theory. If you are correct (I do not say I agree with you or for that matter disagree) then the words Time and Space are just words. We play with words because we are human and we want to understand what is around us.

Occam's Razor is good which is why I use the term supernatural when referring to the First Cause. Something which is beyond nature, cannot be measured by any natural means. Something which did exist outside time and space and has no beginning. It simply is. And it may be the universe.

Christian Scientists believe that "All is Infinite Mind in all its infinite expressions".

 

One aspect of time might be perceived from this question: How is time measured?

About space, and to make a long story short and more fun: Where is the center of the universe?

Now the point is that if every point in space can be perceived as the center of the universe, including you (and you, and you, and me!), then where are you going when you're in a train from Sacramento to Los Angeles that travels at 80 miles per hour?

 

You forget, that when you get to Quantum Physics and other branches of Physics that deal with the universe, Simple Physics no longer applies and thus cannot be applied to this question.

 

Regardless, that particular cosmological proof's primary interest is proving the universe is causal in nature. Even the big bang, which for quite some time scientists had believed the particle spread was random has now been shown to be ordered. Also even in Quantum, we can mathematically deduce the movement of quantum particles which demonstrates the idea of causal movement.

Look at string theory. Everything is interconnected and every cause has an effect on all other matter.

 

I like the fact that people can except a mysterius creator being as the first move, but not the big bang. one begs to ask, what moved the creator into being? if there has to be a first move, who took it and what did he do before? (its a bit simple put, but i think it illustrates the lack of logic, in the "god must be the first to excist)

 

Equester, the argument often used against that is that God has always been there. We're talking about infinity here. The problem with the Big Bang theory is what was before the Big Bang? One can continue to ask that no matter what answer is given. "Yeah, and what came before that?"

That is why I hold the belief that everything existed, certainly planets are made in various ways over time, others explode or are destroyed - whatever. It's far easier to look at it that stuff has always been there. Just 'always'. There was no beginning because THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE.

 

Exactly. If time is only a way to measure change in the relation of objects to one another, then what is eternity? What is 'time beyond time', if the Newtonian concept of time is not valid?

Ilmater's Suffering: Probabilistic formulation is a mathematical one, but it does not imply that everything would be deterministic.

 

Before the "big bang"? I like a concept some of the Physicists at Uni once described. I have no idea as to it's validity though.

At some point in time the universe will start contracting and all mass will get dragged back together. Once this reaches a critical point, another "Big bang" will occur spreading the matter far and wide, untill once again it starts to contract. The whole system is cyclical and not dependent on any given "first cause"

Mmm... Having done a little research it appears to be testicles.This explains it better than I ever could.

 

If anyone is truly interested in one attempt to reconcile old religion and modern physics, I highly recommend the book "Judaism, Physics, and God" by Rabbi David W. Nelson.