First cause?

[Jeremiahcp]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

 

[idav]

Does there need to be a first cause?

An action not having a time constraint of before and after, doesn't need cause and effect.

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

Good question, I have no idea. I suspect something like that can't be perceived in a space tied to time.

And must the first cause be God?

Yes I think so, or you could just call it "most first thing that caused everything".

 

[Cobol]

Cosmologists agree that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

First cause? No. We have numerous examples of cause-less events in the Real World already.

One of the most popular examples, is "what causes a random atom in a radioactive material, to suddenly split and give off some form of radiation?"

Answer: nothing. The process is entirely random, and isn't a cause-and-effect event.

Another fine example, is at the quantum level of things, nothing is cause-and-effect. All events at the quantum level, are based on probability; none are cause-and-effect.

Not one quantum event has a cause.

The most fundamental and basic properties of our universe, operates entirely without cause: trillions of events every millisecond, none have a cause.

If the foundational structure of the Universe does not require a cause? So, too can we safely postulate the Universe itself, does not require a cause.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Cosmologists agree that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

No, they don't. You added the "nothing" part.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose a way to look at it is to conversely ask if something can be nothing at the same time. Its conjecturing as to weither determinism fits into a model for causation or not.

 

[Quintessence]

Not one quantum event has a cause.

Could you elaborate on how this is relevant to our day-to-day lives? That is to say, does alleged causelessness at a quantum level have any meaningfulness given we as humans do not exist at that level of organization?

Does there need to be a first cause?

I don't see why. I don't see why not either. I don't really care about the question, honestly. It doesn't have any relevance to how I live my life in the now. That said, the stories I tell are about cyclicality and transformation, because that is how the world I know in the now works.

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

I don't see how. Humans are very limited creatures, even if they often like to believe otherwise.

And must the first cause be God?

Some of the Abrahamic monotheists would say so, because to them their god is, by definition, the first cause. I don't agree with their theology. My gods are not defined as "first cause."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Could you elaborate on how this is relevant to our day-to-day lives? That is to say, does alleged causelessness at a quantum level have any meaningfulness given we as humans do not exist at that level of organization?

In truth, cause-and-effect is something of an illusion on the macro level that we experience.

It's all probabilistic.

To put it another way, what are the odds of an event happening, if you take trillions of chances, and average the outcomes of those events?

The "outcome" will be whichever event has the highest probability of happening, even if the chance is only 50.000001%.

That's how probabilities work. The macro world is just the average outcome of trillions of quantum level events-- and it has the appearance of cause-and-effect, if you look at it that way.

Yet, it seems that we can depend on cause-and-effect over and over, right? Strike a dry match, and it lights-- the chemistry of phosphorous in an oxygenated atmosphere is pretty dependable.

Yet-- if you add up all the match-strikes in all of history, the total number is a tiny fraction of one millisecond's worth of quantum-level events in any random area larger than a closet...

In the final analysis, if Quantum Mechanics is a reasonably accurate model? Then cause and effect is an illusion.

However, it is a very convenient illusion, and in pretty much every case, we can depend on cause-and-effect in our everyday lives.

Mainly due to the fact we only exist for a brief candle-flicker in the history of the universe.

And by "we", that could easily be "you" or "me" or? The entire human race. All would be correct.

 

[metis]

Does there need to be a first cause?

No, because infinity is another option.

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

Likely impossible since how is it even hypothetically possible for us to go back over 17 billion year.

And must the first cause be God?

Could be "Gods", right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

Atheist academics used to hold that there was no beginning to the universe, explicitly to get around this problem.

As far as we can tell now, there was, so it seems there has to be a cause of some kind.

My money would be on God yes, because there is not only the paradox of 'first cause' which is apparently solved one way or another..
but the paradox of creation without creativity, the origins of all the information systems necessary to run the universe and life.

We know such information systems can be originated through creative intelligence, but whether or not purely spontaneous/ naturalistic mechanisms can achieve the same is a trickier question

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

1. No
2. Can't be verified because nothing appears from thin air and nothing disappears. Just mix, change forms, blends, but is still present.
3. No. That's redundant. God is life. Everything is life. Life is in a full cycle of creation without a first cause. What makes life, life? Energy (among other things)

Taking out culture and traditions of various religions that define god.

 

[ratiocinator]

My money would be on God yes, because there is not only the paradox of 'first cause' which is apparently solved one way or another..
but the paradox of creation without creativity, the origins of all the information systems necessary to run the universe and life.

But a god doesn't actually explain anything at all. It doesn't overcome the 'paradox' of first cause nor does it explain complexity, information or creativity - it just bundles up all the difficult stuff and makes them attributes of this 'god' - that somehow, magically, doesn't need any further explanation.

It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "this is difficult to explain - I dunno, it must be magic..."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But a god doesn't actually explain anything at all. It doesn't overcome the 'paradox' of first cause nor does it explain complexity, information or creativity - it just bundles up all the difficult stuff and makes them attributes of this 'god' - that somehow, magically, doesn't need any further explanation.

It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "this is difficult to explain - I dunno, it must be magic..."

I'm saying that there are two distinct paradoxes here.

The 'first cause' paradox applies to any explanation 'where did THAT come from' right? So not only is it a wash, it's a moot point, because here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or another.

The other paradox is unique to naturalism, where the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.... those very same laws.

Creative intelligence solves this paradox as it can truly create novel information systems, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm saying that there are two distinct paradoxes here.

The 'first cause' paradox applies to any explanation 'where did THAT come from' right? So not only is it a wash, it's a moot point, because here we are, obviously there is a solution one way or another.

The other paradox is unique to naturalism, where the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.... those very same laws.

Creative intelligence solves this paradox as it can truly create novel information systems, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect

But it doesn't explain them - except in a just-so story kind of way. All the problems are still there, they are just moved into this magic 'god'.

For example: "the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.... those very same laws", has just become: god must ultimately be accounted for by.... the very same god...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it doesn't explain them - except in a just-so story kind of way. All the problems are still there, they are just moved into this magic 'god'.

For example: "the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.... those very same laws", has just become: god must ultimately be accounted for by.... the very same god...

No, because creative intelligence provides a unique power of explanation, unrestrained by automated naturalistic mechanisms.

If you see 'HELP' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you assume the random action of the waves washed them up that way? why not?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, because creative intelligence provides a unique power of explanation, unrestrained by automated naturalistic mechanisms.

So, creative intelligence can create itself, can it? Creative intelligence is complex, so complexity can explain itself?

All the evidence we have indicates that creative intelligence is only ever found associated with (all the evidence is that it is produced by) complex physical structures (brains).

If you see 'HELP' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you assume the random action of the waves washed them up that way? why not?

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

1. No
2. Can't be verified because nothing appears from thin air and nothing disappears. Just mix, change forms, blends, but is still present.
3. No. That's redundant. God is life. Everything is life. Life is in a full cycle of creation without a first cause. What makes life, life? Energy (among other things)

Taking out culture and traditions of various religions that define god.

Yes, all we can really see is transformations. We think of things transforming, but in reality there are no things, just empty transformation.

 

[viole]

Cosmologists agree that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

View attachment 16539

This is a nice picture.

We should take a good look at that. That is a simplified representation of spacetime as a whole. Spacetime: a physical and objective entity. It looks like a bell. In reality, it is a 4 dimensional bell (actually, more like a 4 dimensional condom).. And that bell did not begin to exist. It is not like it was a point growing into a bell. Growing requires time, and time is part of that bell. It is not external to it. It is a bell, laid out in its entirety. Eternally. Not even eternally, since it trascends time, by definition.

Look, there is a point on that bell that is the event of my birth. Another one that is the event of my death. It is not the case that the former disappeaered and the latter does not exist, yet. They are both there. Mapped eternally on that bell. And what we call the Big Bang is just another point on that surface, not particularly more important than the others.

Which is obvious: how could spacetime change, begin, expand, die at all, if we consider that all those concepts make sense only within it, and are therefore not applicable to the whole? In fact, that bell is not expanding at all. Only some cross sections seem to have different sizes. Like it is the case for all bells. It just is. It is, necessarily, unchanging. It would be meaningless to use tensed verbs to describe it.

Therefore, anyone who says that the Universe began, scientist or not, did not pay attention. She forgot what we know since 100 years. Namely, that spacetime is the only objective thing that gives shape to the Universe. And this spacetime, by its very definition, is immune from considerations involving dynamics and change of any kind.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, creative intelligence can create itself, can it? Creative intelligence is complex, so complexity can explain itself?

All the evidence we have indicates that creative intelligence is only ever found associated with (all the evidence is that it is produced by) complex physical structures (brains).


What's that got to do with anything?

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, and many others who consider themselves 'atheist' consider it feasible that we could one day create our own universe, and that this may be where ours came from.
(the creative product of alien-universe)

That's just one form of ID, but provides a hypothetical power of explanation superior to the odds of blind chance doing the same

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

If Time itself was created with the Big Bang, then nothing existed before it. Thus, we need no other First Cause that would precede the BB.

But the fact is that our human minds cannot comprehend that idea. We cannot fathom ideas of "eternity" either.

This is due to the fact we have zero experience with it. Our short short lives are confined and defined by finite terms. Deadlines, matter, clocks, rules, laws, et al. Ergo, Infinity, or a time when there was nothing, is simply not an idea we can reckon with. This does not mean it does not exist, however.
Same deal goes for death. Some folks, well, all, even atheists, cannot imagine what it is like to be dead. Cannot fathom the notion of total Void.

So, when we evolved and acquired our frontal lobes and our emotions, we felt the need to invent Gods and Afterlives, as a sort of emotional placebo.

Many Evolutionary Psychologists and nuerologists even go so far as to claim that the homo sapien brain is hardwired for belief in gods.