First Cause

Remove all ads!

@abomination, yeah i have heard that one a lot, it still dosn't answer what he did before starting it all. for me it leaves just as big a question as what happened before the big bang.:

Carcaroth, i heard and was thought the same theory. also heard one with a twist, where all mather, one day would go through black holes and start new universes

 

It's not my point to prove it is deterministic. Mathematic relationships however do provide, necessarily, a causal relationship. If you plug two sums into an equation, they do in turn cause the conclusion.

 

I think the notion of a 'First Cause' sort of hits us where we are weak, so to speak. I believe that substance, space, and time truly exist. They are not just conjurations of my mind; rather, my mind recreates them for me. What is a mind? I think it is an object which observers and predicts. The primary purpose of thinking was (and is) to predict what would happen based upon what was being observed. This dovetails with the notion of evolution. We try to figure things out so that we can be 'happy'. Happy: not eaten, well-fed, physically whole...and then when we get into complex animals like humans, social concerns become paramount, such as joy predicated by fellowship, and membership.

OK. So, there is a world of substance (space and time), and there is the objective me, which is my brain, also composed of substance. 'I' am the predicting model-builder that lies between. I cannot truly know the world, because all I have to know are models, and models are not exact duplicates. I cannot truly know myself, as the objective me is actually part of the world of substance, which again, I cannot truly know. So it turns out that I don't truly know that much. Instead, I am just tethered to all this substance by whatever 'facts' I can get which will fit into my model building machine. For example, I have this model of me in my head. It is how I know myself. It is not really me. It is close to me though, as I have been imagining myself for a number of years. But every once in awhile, something will happen, like I will try an olive or something, and then realize, either I have changed, or I was in error about myself the first time. Either way, the model of myself was not accurate. Olives are not evil made spherical.

So we are only tethered to 'reality'. We don't really know, and we will never truly know. It is just not in the cards for us brains. However, we still have our models. Some people are actually incredibly accurate model builders. These men have given us electricy, genetics, medicine, and all the other many technologies which allow us to live such happier lives as compared to our forefathers.

But aside from the practical concerns of accurate model building, there are social concerns as well.

If a person were to take some notion which "broke" their model building ability, such as, for example, existence outside of time and space, or "thinking" without their brain (being dead), and then try to build a model of it, they would just end up using observations they have made previously, and improperly organizing them into some poorly amalgamated pseudo-reality. If I can't know something, I can't know it, and trying to force myself to approximate it by hacking my current knowledge into ill-fitting chunks is just not a good idea. "But why isn't it a good idea?", you may ask. Well it turns out that I like writing and sharing, so I'll fill you in.

When we communicate, what we are doing is sending little symbols back and forth to one another that cause us each to form a similar model in our heads. 'Similar' is the key word there. We can't have the exact same model, but we can get really close. Now ultimately, for a complex model (that being a model which relies upon other models to work) to be communicated, I need your simpler models to be inline with my simple models, or the more complex model doesn't stand a chance of being understood.

If you foul up your model building machine (your imagination, head, thinking terrain, whatever...) with models built upon unknowable "facts", then we are not going to be able to communicate, or at least not deeply. Instead we'll talk about the weather and holidays.

This is why religious people, in an effort to remain religious, have become isolationists. Athiests have the most friends, and the least knowledge (but they share that knowledge quite easily), while religious people tend to have very distant relationships, but they "know" things quite certainly.

Alright, maybe that last paragraph turned into shortly-worded generalization, but I'm getting bored of writing and want to make my point.

The less magic you believe in, the more we can communicate. And communication makes me feel good. I like feeling good. Don't believe in magic, so that way I can understand the things you tell me, and we can communicate.

 

I'm with Abomination on this one. No matter which way you look at it (with our human understanding) there has to be an infinite series. There always is the question of "What created god?" or "What was before the Big Bang?"

To me, the defult answer (and most simplist explaination) is that matter and energy has always existed. It never was created and never will end.

I've always found the theory that Carcaroth described fittest best with my point of view. We have the big bang, which spreads all matter out from one point. It continues to expand, 'til a certain point, where eventaully it gets all sucked in again through blackholes and what not. Then once it reaches that 'central' point, we have another bang and go back to the begining.

 

In theory a non-conditional being, i.e. an infinite being, is necessarily not bound by the laws of space and time (time and space negate the infinity of the infinite being). Also necessarily an infinite being cannot have a creator without being contradictory (as Spinoza argues, for God to have a creator, we have a separate infinity, which requires on has a quality the other doesn't have and suddenly we don't have infinity any more). When we ask the question "Who created an infinite being", we're assuming the infinite being is a finite being.

 

So in other words He did it becasue He could do it.

The problem is we have this one being that just ups and decides to create everything. Just like that. Bam! There's Earth, there's the Sun, there's Alpha Centari, there's the milky way, there are all those other galaxies. He operates outside of the laws of space and time, so in other words he's this big magical guy, kind'a like Santa Claus I guess (there is no way he could visit every home on the planet in one night, despite said night lasting 24 hours).

The claim is that God created everything. Including space and time and if that's the case we're really streching this stuff out. We've hit this "He's so powerful He can do anything." subject where anything that good happens he did it because he could and anything bad that happens he had no hand in it etc. A massive claim to make and especially doubtful without some kind of proof. Oh, the only mention of this is in the Bible is in Genesis and that's all the proof on this subject one can run on.

In the end one is free to believe that God created everything but excuse me if I think you're totally bonkers for beliving in your great big magic man.

 

I think Ilmater's Suffering is correct. I however believe that infinity exists. There is no beginning or end to infinity. I love Isaac Asimov's story of creation, Don't recall the name at the moment.

The problem with discussing infinity is words and the fact that we are not infinite beings our self. We deal with cause and effect. We are always searching for the cause of something and when we reach a point when we can no longer find a point our minds rebel.

I do find the statements inferring or directly saying that to be believe in 'god' is illogical annoying. Which brings me back to my original question "why is it more illogical to believe in an Infinite Source but not to believe that some matter or energy was sitting around infinitely just waiting to become the universe?" Both are the infinite source.

I have changed my words somewhat since that is all I have to express my ideas.

 

An infinite being operates outside the laws of time and space, but still operates within its own necessity. The nature of an infinite being isn't so much magical as logical. Infinity does set a number of constraints that an infinite being must had here to, namely that an infinite being cannot be lacking on qualities (i.e. it cannot become finite) and cannot be surpassed by another being. Our infinite being would be a logical contradiction if he was subject to time and space and had to be created by something else.

Also the anthropomorphic notion of creation might not be the most appropriate term. Philosophically, it might be more appropriate to simply state that beings came into existence through the mere existence of god, that our infinite being's knowledge of an idea allows an idea to exist. This is derived from the idea of the infinite being acting more as the foundation of conceptual reality. From Berkeley's position, we exist because we are innate ideas that our infinite being has "sensory" perception of.

 

No being can operate outside of time. Stop using words I know in a non-sensical manner.

 

What are you taking about? The negation of the statement "God operates within time" is perfectly logical. You're turning the argument into an anthropomorphic one and asserting false statements.

 

True no 'being' can operate outside time and space if by a being you mean something created. But the Infinite Source, whether god is meant or simply the universe, is not created it just is/was/always will be.

We are all game players on this board and when we step into a game we suspend disbelief. In the game universe things can happen that do not happen in real life.

The same thing happens when we discuss infinity. We are dealing with something that is outside of what we call time and space. We live in time and space but those are words. Words created by human beings to express an idea.

I do not believe that god is man or a woman. I do not believe that god is anything like me. I did not create god. Again we are dealing with the limitations of words. I have no idea if this Infinite Source cares about me or even knows I exist. That to me is a completely different subject and one that IMO we have argued ad nauseam on this board.

 

If I said to you, "Pigs cannot fly," and you responded, "the negation of the statement "pigs cannot fly" is perfectly logical", I'd correctly think you a tool.

As far as arguing along anthropomorphic lines: to quote the last words of Elvis, "No ****." That is the whole point. I know that you have no capacity to have an understanding of anything outside of time. 'Time' is not a mental object that can be removed when imagining what is possible. If you think you know something about what is happening when 'before', 'now', and 'then' no longer apply, I would like to hear it. But I'd be surprised if it made any sense.

I'll still be on my anthropomorphic ground when you decide to stop arguing from a perspective that cannot exist (it clues me in to the fact you're full of Elvis's surprise...).

 

You and every kid studying geometry. A line between two points is a finite object made up of infinite points. Discuss.

 

Sorry, Late Night Thinker, if I understand you correctly and I'm not sure I do, my reaction is then we don't exist. If this universe exists either it has always existed or somehow it came into being.

When I was a child I studied Euclid's Geometry when I was a young adult I studied Non-Euclid's Geometry. Which one is correct? Can both be correct or does one refute the other.

Neither have you answer my question "Why am I bonkers to believe in a Supernatural Creator but it is okay to believe in some unexplained matter or energy that just happened to exist somehow and just happen to suddenly or slowly evolve into the universe as we know it.

Because you say "Your bonkers" isn't an answer. It simply evades an answer. You are free to believe what you wish to believe including that I am crazy but do not think that simply saying so makes it true or is any way, shape or form an answer to my very serious question.

 

Well, I didn't agree to the either/or nature of the question, so you have kind of taken away some options that I would have included. Options like: I don't know, or it is impossible to know. I think the point you are trying to make is that scientists don't really know what happened. This is true. I don't think they are ever going to know. Verification just seems impossible. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

And just like in all things, you can make any theory you want to explain it...I'm mean, after all, it is your head. But if those ideas come from things that are unexplainable to you, then you must see how I am going to understand whatever you say as 'bonkers'. When it is explainable to you, then it will seem coherent to me. 'Bonkers' isn't a good word to use though...well, yeah, maybe it is...kinda funny.

In all honesty, I really like smart spiritually-curious people Nakia. Probably why I've spent so much time here. But that doesn't mean I don't think critically about the things you post... (and then write those criticisms...jeeze, I'm critical...)

I think using fuzzy words like 'time' and 'infinity' to justify the existence of something incoherent is just a trick to delude. And referencing math as if at some time you went, "...of course, these number interacted with these numbers over here ---> GOD!" is using a delusional trick as well. So, you know, stop doing that. Using delusional tricks. That.

What is it from the use of mathematics that has led you to believe that there is a Supernatural Creator? I think it is a fair question.

 

Thank you Late-Night Thinker. You are quite correct in the lack of verification.

As far as fuzzy words go IMO most words are fuzzy partly because each person thinks differently but it is how we communicate. If someone has a better way to communicate I would like to know it. It is also why we have debates such as this one.

Mathematics neither proves or disproves the existence of God. I used the geometry example because it is something we use everyday and is part of time and space as we know it. Yet there are ambiguities (not sure if that is the right word) inconsistency?

Why do I believe in a Supernatural Creator? Because I, after doing a life time of studying, research, living, have yet to find any explanation of creation that makes more sense to me. And no I do not want to get in a discussion of evolution or what is written in one holy book or another. Try that and I have a great link I can give you.

I find Abomination's theory of great interest but it does not preclude in my mind a Supernatural Source but perhaps changes the aspect some. I will have to think further on it. I'll get back to you in a few years. No, I am not being flip. A serious subject deserves to have time and effort given to it.

I, too, would not be here if I did not enjoy the give and take of ideas but I find the use of words such as 'bonkers' or 'crazy' offensive whether they are used towards what I believe or what someone else believes. I also think they show a lack of respect for the other person's ideas and a lack of thought on the part of the person using them. That is not just directed to Late-Night Thinker or Abomination but anyone who uses them.

I assume you mean a third/fourth option such as Abomination gave. But that is not my question. I mean my question exactly as I stated it. Feel free to express any third opinion you wish but that still does not answer my question just adds another layer to it.

The fact that something cannot be verified by scientific processes does not make it invalid. People have been making bread that rises for centuries but it is only in fairly recent times that we know that the yeast that causes it to rise is actually animalcula. The point to that illustration is that it is possible to use something without understanding it and that is similar to what people who believe in a supernatural being do. Having said that I now have to say that it is important that we respect other peoples beliefs even if we find them, shall we say, difficult to accept.

 

You clearly have no conception of metaphysics do you? The question of "first cause" is a metaphysical question as it cannot happen within a physical argument necessarily. The first cause is about the physical world, it explains the physical world, it isn't part of the physical world, because it is deductively impossible given the "premises" of the material world.

Anyway, if you are unable to understand the necessity of metaphysics in this argument I see no reason to further argue. If Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza and Berkeley among others all thought this argument needed metaphysics to solve, then it pretty goes to say it does.

By the premise you've asserted, you've created semantics similar to that of Parmenides' problem in which you cannot talk about something not existing because taking about an idea which lacks existence is unintelligible. The premise of a negated statement is still an valid position.

[ February 16, 2007, 07:18: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]

 

@ IS

Well, before I begin...

It is clear that you have read many ancient books.

That being said, I am not saying that we may not talk about the subject of what happens outside of time, just that I know you don't know what you're talking about. I'm also fairly certain that you know that you don't know what you're talking about. They probably explained that on page 1021 of Spinoza's book...


Edit...

"it isn't part of the physical world..."

That means it doesn't exist, right?

The "premises" is your way of stating that you have a perspective which allows you to imagine the "handles and tools" by which your "super-powerful invisible intelligence" constructed the universe. Some sort of glimpse into the pre-Big Bang control-center. I don't think you have that perspective. I'm certain that you don't.

Late-Night Thinker operates within time.

since somehow within/without became negation instead of transportation...

Late-Night Thinker operates without time.

Do I?


@ Nakia

What you are missing there is that when people were rising bread, they were doing something which was in some way understandable to the people doing it---they just had not figured it out yet.

What you are describing with your 'super-natural creator/First Cause' is different. You are describing something that can never be known. We are never going to find out what happened before time, because 'before time' is just a trick of language, and not a real time.


@ IS

You got me thinking...

Yes, and no...

The statement, "He went to work with his goggles," can be negated coherently.

The statement, "He danced while not being paralyzed," cannot be coherently negated. (wish I could have come up with a better example BTW...it's late...)

[ February 16, 2007, 09:12: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

I'm not going to answer that question exactly, as because you have said, both thoughts do have their major flaws. What I can do though, is probably the next best thing - tell you why I think the idea of a infinite universe is more viable than an infinite being, although I guess I am standing with LNT in saying that either side is difficult to argue as we simply can't think to such a big scope as infinite.

We have two theories here - first one assumes that there is an infinite being, a god (I'm going to use this word - feel free to substitute it for what ev eryou wish) who has always existed, created all matter. Second assumes that all matter has always existed. For the first one to be true, something that we do not know for certain exists, a god, must (1) exist; and (2) not have been caused by something. For the second theory to be true, something we know does exist, matter, must (1) not have been caused by something.

I look at those two and the first thing that jumps to mind is that the second theory, that matter has always existed, is much more simple than the first, that an infinite god created matter. It simply does not need to bring in another entity for it to be true. I guess it's Occam's Razor, as Montresor said on the previous page.

Is this a good reason for believing one over the other? Certainly not. But it is a reason and I personally do not know of any other reason. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

I had a feeling you would see it that way. Yes I can show you that bread rises but I can't show you how it rises just by looking at it. It takes special modern instruments to do that.

We look around us and see that the world exists but we can't prove how or why it exists. Sorry but the scientists are guessing and they don't all agree on the same guess.

The theory or idea of a Supernatural Cause is also a guess. In my thinking I relate this Cause to the animalcula that cause bread to rise. Our ancestors had no way of seeing the animalcula and did not know that they existed. All they knew was the effect not the cause. That was enough for them. I have no why of 'seeing' what I call the First Cause. I interpolate a First Cause because my mind can not accept a universe that sprang into being from nothing. Assuming that the universe is material and not in some way supernatural. Supernatural meaning beyond nature or more than nature.

Perhaps you and others can accept a universe created from nothing but I can't and I don't think it is because I am stupid and it certainly isn't because I am uneducated because I am very well educated in a few different things.

You are certain that we will never find out what happened before 'time'? Do we still believe the earth is flat? Who knows what humans may be able to accomplish 1000 years from now? I don't. I would hesitate to say that humans can never do something. Perhaps that is because my life has spanned from the days when communication was either directly spoken, written on paper or by radio. Now I can go into FAI and communicate with people from all over the world within a matter of seconds. It constantly amazes me and I think it is wonderful.

Perhaps the modern youth is too used to having the world at his/her finger tips to realize what a wondrous place it is.

The point I am trying to make is that life is full of guesses and always has been. Given enough time humans seem able to prove or disprove things.

I merely want my unproven guesses given the same respect as other unproven guesses and not read or hear that I am crazy or bonkers or an idiot or whatever other insulting word because I so believe. I expand this to include all beliefs and ideas whether I agree or disagree with them. Give them respect. Remember you may think I am wrong but maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

Don't misunderstand me you are free to disagree, you are free to insult me but please be a little creative and polite about it. I will happily insult others if I can do it creatively and politely.

edit: @Rotku, sorry I didn't see your post as I think I was creating mine when you posted. I did mention above why I believe in a First Cause (no I do not wish to use the term 'god'). I also stated in a previous post that I find this idea of 'infinite' matter interesting and will think on it but don't expect an answer in the near future.

[ February 16, 2007, 09:57: Message edited by: Nakia ]