First cause

[Igtheism]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

I think I agree with your thinking but not with your wording. My question to you is this. Why did you write the pair of words "first cause" with no quotation marks around them? By the fact that you wrote "first cause" with no quotation marks around them, most English speakers would take it that you are implying that you know of something that "first cause" refers to that you are claiming that does not (necessarily) exist. That is, they would take it similar to your saying "Why must there be any unicorns?" We don't put quotation marks around the word "unicorn" when we are using it to refer to a nonexistent animal that we do have a concept of. We all know what unicorns are, even though we do not believe any unicorns exist. But I don't think you meant to imply that you believe that "first cause" refers to anything or any concept of anything at all as does the word "unicorn". Am I right? You will probably say yes but that I am being too picky about language. And indeed I am being picky, because the problem with theists and atheists is that both have faith that "God" refers to something of which, like unicorns, a concept can be had. This is the mistake of theism and atheism. I know of no concept that can be had of anything for the capitalized row of alphabet letters "G-o-d" or "f-I-r-s-t--c-a-u-s-e" can refer to -- unlike the row of alphabet letters "u-n-I-c-o-r-n". If you or anybody else has any concept for these rows of alphabet letters ("G-o-d" or "f-I-r-s-t--c-a-u-s-e" ), then please tell me how to go about having whatever concepts you think you have for them.

 

[Igtheism]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

I think I agree with your thinking but not with your wording. My question to you is this. Why did you write the pair of words "first cause" with no quotation marks around them? By the fact that you wrote "first cause" with no quotation marks around them, most English speakers would take it that you are implying that you know of something that "first cause" refers to that you are claiming that does not (necessarily) exist. That is, they would take it similar to your saying "Why must there be any unicorns?" We don't put quotation marks around the word "unicorn" when we are using it to refer to a nonexistent animal that we do have a concept of. We all know what unicorns are, even though we do not believe any unicorns exist. But I don't think you meant to imply that you believe that "first cause" refers to anything or any concept of anything at all as does the word "unicorn". Am I right? You will probably say yes but that I am being too picky about language. And indeed I am being picky, because the problem with theists and atheists is that both have faith that "God" refers to something of which, like unicorns, a concept can be had. This is the mistake of theism and atheism. I know of no concept that can be had of anything for the capitalized row of alphabet letters "G-o-d" or "f-I-r-s-t--c-a-u-s-e" can refer to -- unlike the row of alphabet letters "u-n-I-c-o-r-n". If you or anybody else has any concept for these rows of alphabet letters ("G-o-d" or "f-I-r-s-t--c-a-u-s-e" ), then please tell me how to go about having whatever concepts you think you have for them.

 

[night912]

So this is strange. We ask "how did the universe begin?" and someone "answers"
"It has always been here."

You're forgetting the rest of the answer. The universe didn't "began" because there was no beginning. And eventhough it was explained, you weren't able to grasp the simple concept due to your lack of understanding, resulted in YOU asking,

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
So again, if something was there the whole time, then there was never a point where there was nothing.

"Will our expanding universe have an end?"
"No, it will go on forever."

Actually, you're wrong. And nobody ever said that the infinite universe that is expanding, must go on forever. What do you call an infinite universe that just stopped expanding? An infinite universe that doesn't expand.

"So... did it cycle for all eternity, but THIS TIME, just expand forever?"

You can infinitely spin it as many ways as you like, but it is and has eternally existed.

So are trying to convince us that you as a baby is a totally different and separate being from the adult you today?

It seems like you are trying to argue that the liquid form of H2O known as water is not H2O when it changed to its solid state known as ice? Just FYI, water and ice are both H2O,no matter how hard it is for you to grasp that fact.

 

[rational experiences]

Everything is created and everything does exist, as first self advice as a human and thinking as a human on behalf of a human consciousness.

For surely none of you believe that you are speaking without existing?

One and only one concept does not exist rationally in the life of a human thinking, and that is science, a design and a formula based on science researching for the status of science in a human life.

If you stopped being illogical and placed mind back to the correct placement in which it exists...with self.

Therefore no matter what you personally claim you are talking about, the concept of your reality is for human sciences, formulas and machine designed reactions, as the review of why you are applying these forms of thinking conditions.

And it factually possesses you.

First cause in science therefore quantifies in human owned memories of DNA history and self re owned lived life experience which as an owned plan, DNA advice could be multi times as one self living again and again factually.

Proven by little children with memory of having existed living before as an adult...yet all life is conceived from sperm and an ovary.

And the self is just conscious of self, as a total experience historically.

So if the psyche of a scientist says first cause in science was a big bang, then it was.

And you personally would then need to assess historically what first cause did you human science self cause to the Earth atmosphere in your first science/machine built reaction?

As the theme the body of God O the planet, the Earth heavenly body and an ANTI status against the natural history of God stone gases as Christ?

To burst gases, owning a blasting effect which not only changed natural sound, it also changed your human hearing and brain conditions.

As the memory big bang, via human consciousness equating that memory.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think I agree with your thinking but not with your wording. My question to you is this. Why did you write the pair of words "first cause" with no quotation marks around them? By the fact that you wrote "first cause" with no quotation marks around them, most English speakers would take it that you are implying that you know of something that "first cause" refers to that you are claiming that does not (necessarily) exist.

With the quotes, I'm American and English native. The context of the thread defined the jargon already so quotes aren't needed. I usually don't quote or caps or quote anything god-themed Universe, First Cause, God/Lord/Whatever, unless it's a grammar thing.

Everything else I'm not following. I never had faith in god and I'm very indifferent about the topic. If I didn't open RF on my laptop, god would never come in my head, theist, or atheist since I have better things to think about.

 

[PruePhillip]

You're forgetting the rest of the answer. The universe didn't "began" because there was no beginning. And eventhough it was explained, you weren't able to grasp the simple concept due to your lack of understanding, resulted in YOU asking,

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
So again, if something was there the whole time, then there was never a point where there was nothing.


Actually, you're wrong. And nobody ever said that the infinite universe that is expanding, must go on forever. What do you call an infinite universe that just stopped expanding? An infinite universe that doesn't expand.


You can infinitely spin it as many ways as you like, but it is and has eternally existed.

So are trying to convince us that you as a baby is a totally different and separate being from the adult you today?

It seems like you are trying to argue that the liquid form of H2O known as water is not H2O when it changed to its solid state known as ice? Just FYI, water and ice are both H2O,no matter how hard it is for you to grasp that fact.

Actually, there are many forms of H2O, and many forms of ice. Interesting topic. On some outer moons
and planets the ice acts as a kind of steel.
But the "argument" that the universe has always been here kind of sucks intellectually. People play word
games with the notion of time as we simply don't know what it is. Whatever we believe, we believe it for
the simple reason we prefer to believe it 'cos we don't know.

 

[nPeace]

So apparently, you didn't read anything in this thread at all.

Why do you say that?

Then why are you disagreeing if you don't think that intelligence is a part of the initial process, you just think that it is.

I don't understanding the question. What am I disagreeing with?

 

[nPeace]

Absolutely. ALL models are incomplete.



And this is what you got wrong. ONE model says there was a beginning. Another, more complete model says there was not. A third, which is an alternative to the second, and also more complete than the first, says that there was. All three models are based on our current data.

So, no, we do NOT know from the data that there was a beginning.

Can you please specify what models you speak of, so that I can follow you.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you please specify what models you speak of, so that I can follow you.

Quantum Loop gravity has models with no beginning. String thoery has models with a multiverse with no beginning.

In fact, it is hard to find a quantum theory of gravity that *does* have a beginning.

 

[nPeace]

Quantum Loop gravity has models with no beginning. String thoery has models with a multiverse with no beginning.

In fact, it is hard to find a quantum theory of gravity that *does* have a beginning.

How are these models more complete than the BB?

Spoiler

List of unsolved problems in physics
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

There are still some deficiencies in the Standard Model of physics, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino mass, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself—the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and the centres of black holes beyond the event horizon).

Interpretation of quantum mechanics
Cosmic inflation
Quantum gravity

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity
(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative theories of quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity has never been experimentally tested.

Can String Theory Be Tested?
For decades, physicists have been trying to combine quantum physics and general relativity into a single, unified theory. One of the leading contenders is string theory, an elegant vision in which matter and the very forces of nature are vibrating and interacting filaments of energy. It sounds great, but there’s a problem: No one can really figure out a way to test string theory.

Will String Theory Finally Be Put to the Experimental Test?
Physicists have found a way the theory might limit the cosmic inflation that is thought to have expanded the early universe.

Many physicists consider string theory our best hope for combining quantum physics and gravity into a unified theory of everything. Yet a contrary opinion is that the concept is practically pseudoscience, because it seems to be nearly impossible to test through experiments. Now some scientists say we may have a way to do exactly that, thanks to a new conjecture that pits string theory against cosmic expansion.

You are not getting mixed up with other things coming to your mind, are you?
I know that sometimes happen, when our mind is in overdrive - thinking about too many things at once.

Or are you perhaps putting the cart before the horse, again - thinking of what might be (future)? To use the words from this article...
Many physicists consider string theory our best hope for combining quantum physics and gravity into a unified theory of everything.

Did you deliberately avoid my question though? What is the universe... according to science?
According to this definition... The physical universe is defined as all of space and time (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents. Such contents comprise all of energy in its various forms, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and therefore planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.

So, if all of space and time began at some point in time, how do you relate to this, in your belief, or are you simply of a different opinion?

 

[PruePhillip]

Can you please specify what models you speak of, so that I can follow you.

Relax guys. We don't know.
Creation issues and evolution are fairly simple to address - the data is right here.
Finding what "happened" before anything happened is a bit harder.
And a universe creating itself when it didn't exist kind of sucks scientifically and
philosophically.

 

[rational experiences]

When does science say to itself, I am a natural human first.

I live on a stone planet I named as Earth.

We live on Earth inside of a natural gas lit atmosphere that owns its owned planetary natural laws.

To do science I exist in this status first and cannot exist owning any form of theory that does not support my owned human natural laws first.

 

[night912]

Actually, there are many forms of H2O, and many forms of ice. Interesting topic. On some outer moons
and planets the ice acts as a kind of steel.
But the "argument" that the universe has always been here kind of sucks intellectually. People play word
games with the notion of time as we simply don't know what it is. Whatever we believe, we believe it for
the simple reason we prefer to believe it 'cos we don't know.

And it's still H2O.

And the argument intellectually answered the question, "why was there something rather than nothing?"

 

[PruePhillip]

And it's still H2O.

And the argument intellectually answered the question, "why was there something rather than nothing?"

All arguments about the existence of God, like most other arguments, boil to
WHAT YOU WANT for yourself. Try arguing sex, religion or politics with anyone
and you will notice this.
Same with the beginning of the universe. It's beyond our reach so we are free to
take a preferred position. I just say that the universe couldn't not create itself
when it didn't exist.
The beginnings argument is on a different level to the usual issues about evolution.
Be definition, whatever created the universe lies outside of the universe, space and
time and thus all bets are off as to figuring it out.

 

[Polymath257]

Did you deliberately avoid my question though? What is the universe... according to science?
According to this definition... The physical universe is defined as all of space and time (collectively referred to as spacetime) and their contents. Such contents comprise all of energy in its various forms, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and therefore planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.

That's a pretty good start to the definition of 'the universe', yes.

So, if all of space and time began at some point in time, how do you relate to this, in your belief, or are you simply of a different opinion?

Again, *if*.

There are two main options:
1. The universe started to exist at a certain point.

2. The universe (possibly in the context of a multiverse) has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Technically, there is also an option of cyclic time, but that is a very unlikely possibility, but logically possible.

Our main (Standard) model suggests 1. We know that model is incomplete, and more complete models suggest 2.

Which means we cannot say for sure whether 1 or 2 is actually the case.

If 1 is indeed the case, then the universe, along with time, only goes finitely far into the past. That literally means that there was no 'before the universe' since time (for the word 'before') literally doesn't go back farther than the start. In this case, talking about the 'cause' of the universe is meaningless since 'cause' also requires time.

If 2 is the case, then 'cause' also doesn't apply to the universe (multiverse) because there was no 'before the universe'.

One of the problem a lot of people have is imagining a first moment of time. In other words, a point for which there is no 'before'. If 1 is the case, then this is the reality. If 2 is the case, then every time has a previous time.

 

[night912]

All arguments about the existence of God, like most other arguments, boil to
WHAT YOU WANT for yourself. Try arguing sex, religion or politics with anyone
and you will notice this.
Same with the beginning of the universe. It's beyond our reach so we are free to
take a preferred position. I just say that the universe couldn't not create itself
when it didn't exist.
The beginnings argument is on a different level to the usual issues about evolution.
Be definition, whatever created the universe lies outside of the universe, space and
time and thus all bets are off as to figuring it out.

Before all that, one must first show that it was created.

 

[PruePhillip]

Before all that, one must first show that it was created.

You have to define what "created" means to you.
The universe is here - so someone or something
"created" it.

 

[rational experiences]

As it is created if you impose nothing to it, then you do not want it to exist.

As a first origin male science thought. Theme/story before building machine believed to cause it.

Then you would ask was first science machine a collider and not a pyramid.

And pyramid temple science only on modern day Earth life.

So if you asked a science mind, what and where did you apply thinking about the Sun UFO history as a theme?

The answer is what was below the water....huge sink holes...the radiation mass of streams that conjoined in a cold mass radiation fusion reaction at the core.

The place of nothing and cold radiation mass historically when you talk God the stone.

For first of all no human can talk factually about God not being relative when you are a human only due to standing on a stone planet inside of its atmosphere.

You might claim but my thoughts (conscious) explains conditions when I personally did not exist and then give it a fake spiritual reference. As if you were thinking/researching those conditions as based on a spiritual purpose, when it was a Destroyer purpose.

For the only true science state of nothing is a human ability to invent it, belongs to the stone fusion itself...to cause nothing...by removal of mass/numbers as MATHS to a minus state. For numbers cannot begin in a minus state for the only begin in cold fused massed conditions first.

Coercion first takes the single self on a peer group tour of the cosmos to take your mind away from what they really are inferring. To force God the planet/stone to disappear....which is a tunnel sink hole bore out to the core of Earth.

Where a human in awareness knows about core gain/fusion reaction in cold radiation mass co joined by a large amount of radiation.

As UFO radiation mass did in fact form sink holes, then any form of radiation UFO seen entering the water is trying to factually follow the paths of its origins.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's a whole lot of stuff people didn't believe, until...

Until what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So we do not know that general relativity is correct. Right?
Evolution theory doesn't deal with the origin of life, and the mechanisms are controversial and unconfirmed, so it is a good model, but limited. Therefore, we do not know that evolution occurred. Right?

No.
The current model of gravity doesn't account for quantum gravity. So it can't account for everything within its own scope.

The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory.

Evolution theory does account for the things within its scope.
So evolution theory is a much stronger theory then GR.

This is why they call evolution theory the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences, as it is capable of tieing all biological science together in a single, central, coherent model. Micro-biology, genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, comparative genetic, molecular biology, etc etc. It all fits nicely into this single well-supported, well-established idea, giving it an insane amount of explanatory power.


General Relativity on the other hand... it works quite well. So well that it enables us to build things like satallite based GPS systems. But Newtonian physics also worked quite well. So well that we still use Newtonian physics in practical applications for medium sized objects moving at medium speeds, where relativistic effects are negligable and it would be overkill to include it. The newtonian physics works well enough there.

For GPS systems, GR works well enough.
But as @Polymath257 said, as we approach the more extreme cases of extreme speed or gravitation or the extremely small, then things get tough to the point of eventually breaking down.

Evolutin theory doesn't have such a problem.