First cause

[nPeace]

Correct. Not so.



Time in the sense of coordinate time. Sort of like latitude and longitude on a globe. Latitude starts at the south pole and continues to the north pole.



WHY must they include a creator?

Because it's a possibility.

Like I said, there are two possibilities:

Nope. You probably made up your mind about that, but it is inaccurate, and biased... obviously.

1. Time goes only finitely far into the past.
2. Time goes infinitely far into the past.

???

In the second, the universe/mutiverse existed for all time. In the first, it *also* existed for all time.

In neither was there a *time* when nothing existed. You asked about the mutiverse and whether it needs to be caused (this is assuming the second scenario). And the answer is NO, it would not be cause because it would have always existed: no cause required.

In the first scenario, there is also no need for a cause. Causes, like time, are *part* of the universe. So causality, the universe, time, matter, energy ALL started at the same point.

That's where you are wrong... also.
Since you say you don't know, and you are constantly ifing, then there is a big if. If the universe had a cause, then causality does not depend on the universe, or man's knowledge to exist. It exists outside of both those.

Like a universe that was not created? I can find reliable physicists who say this is possible.

Remember please, this idea of multiverse is no different to your idea of "an imaginary God". So basically, your argument is self defeating.
Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes
See also Arguments against multiverse theories

What reliable documents? I don't find *any* religious documents to be reliable. There is no human who has an ability to detect a supernatural because any ability to detect it means that it is natural.

Sounds like you just killed your multiverse... officially.
Recall that the term supernatural, is to many, merely a concept, based on what humans are unable to understand.
Supernatural to other people is not based on man's comprehension.

 

[rational experiences]

If a scientist, who is first to his own self, human and first to his owned consciousness, the speaker, owner, observer, reader, detailer of any information, in self presence, claiming I know it all.....as I observe I am the highest consciousness.

I would challenge him and say okay, what was a planet in all of its diverse body forms before it was exactly that planet that you observe or any other diverse body in space?

And he would not be enabled to answer correctly....yet thinks he could, being the first natural observed science observation. He just thinks he knows.

So if a male says knowingly...I am the owned human inventor of the use of words, descriptions of all of the words...so then I say to the equal human female so you are inferior to my life because of my self superiority...then he lied.

For all he did was own a human belief system for just humans. As a human with all human intentions...yet tries to coerce the thinker and storytelling into unnatural placations to trick and fool them about his real intentions.

Which always comes back to Planet O Earth, the stone planet and stone natural body all of his studies/observations and thoughts about the stone planet...even though he talks and talks and talks about the cosmos...all his observations are about the planet, because his machine mass comes from the planet also.

So he proves he is coercive.

Then he says.....I claim that the highest description of previous or first order is the eternal. Always had existed, always will exist and a portion of its mass was removed.

I make this claim for I base my own science aware consciousness on removal of a portion of the higher mass...as a copier.

So I know I am mimicking my owned higher aware nature observations but also knowing, which I also state is real...knowing because I am spiritual consciousness actually.

 

[firedragon]

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

How did you make the premise that "all things were created" and what do you mean by that statement?

 

[Polymath257]

Because it's a possibility.

Sure. And it is possible the universe was sneezed into existence by an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean I take the possibility seriously.

Nope. You probably made up your mind about that, but it is inaccurate, and biased... obviously.

???

OK, what third possibility do you see?

That's where you are wrong... also.
Since you say you don't know, and you are constantly ifing, then there is a big if. If the universe had a cause, then causality does not depend on the universe, or man's knowledge to exist. It exists outside of both those.

And if it didn't, it simply exists. Why make things more complicated?

Remember please, this idea of multiverse is no different to your idea of "an imaginary God". So basically, your argument is self defeating.

Not even close. For example, I am not saying the multiverse is conscious. I am not saying the multiverse gives moral guidance. I am not saying the multiverse had an intention.

Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes
See also Arguments against multiverse theories

And I agree with this criticisms. There are *some* theories that allow for testing of multiverse concepts, primarily because of gravitational interactions. The rest are, frankly, mysticism, and not deserving of the name of science.

Sounds like you just killed your multiverse... officially.
Recall that the term supernatural, is to many, merely a concept, based on what humans are unable to understand.
Supernatural to other people is not based on man's comprehension.

So you can't say anything about it, even that it exists. At that point, it seems like silliness to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How did you make the premise that "all things were created" and what do you mean by that statement?

A lot of religious say all are created from a first cause. I asked how when all is "created" or formed into being by cause and effect which is circular not linear.

 

[Igtheism]

Me<<I claim that the words "the universe was created" can make no sense...….I'd like to discuss that point with somebody, if anybody is interested.<<<

Looks like I won the prize with that post. Is anybody interested in discussing that? Debating that? Refuting that?

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness actually says the Universe "exists", for the living bio life says I make comparisons in my owned living consciousness to conditions that I claim is comparable.

Science says what is not supporter of my life....which is spatial cold zero...the coldest body, emptiness....filled in by hot gases...and pressure and extreme cold forced the gases to change to owning cold gases.

Tells stories about cause and effect, and said that burning mass can move through space by being ejected, and cooling so that gases form in cooling to continue the movement/projection....how Earth was attacked by a Sun a long way away.

And reactivated its very cold clear gases into burning gases again.

Humans claim without light I cannot survive, for my consciousness says in light is my food source. Seeing what is not in light enough food, I have to manually eat food also....yet eject a huge mass of that non used energy.

Then science says all life existing was formed in light....and science says it owns living experienced proof that the light in the atmosphere can be removed. So science says seems some forms of life existed for they adapted. For instance, Nature/trees do not form seeds to be eradicated in bush fires, for the heat to open up those seeds for the tree to survive. Nature adapts to harsh changes.

First cause is discussed in relative human consciousness for the state of science, which began as invention. Science was not owned for any other concept.....yet other scientific concepts developed due to and because of first science cause...choice to change natural laws and natural order and attack it.

Which knowingly the scientist living on Earth said first cause for change...for you are not consciousness unless the planet exists created formed....was the break the law of stone fusion and he was mutated and life destroyed.

His knowledge and science statements about his science choices of first cause.

For if no creation once existed....then consciousness is actually stating the creation that did once exist no longer exists for it was destroyed...actually as consciousness.

 

[firedragon]

A lot of religious say all are created from a first cause. I asked how when all is "created" or formed into being by cause and effect which is circular not linear.

So you are saying that by "all things" you meant the "first cause"?

 

[rational experiences]

O circular beginnings as a theory in science says in the beginning everything was burning/irradiated. So that means everything did exist.

His science theory PHI says I will take from O natural pi in the atmosphere, but lying first quotes God the stone as being O owner of a burnt circle.

God the stone never was any burnt circle....water mass O owns the circle in God history, flooded Earth.

O natural light and natural time is naturally already a cycle O 12....natural.

Males wanted to time shift....no such state in natural light as a theist.

We live on a water O God faced stone body...naturally.

Science/machine manipulation removes first water mass history to get mineral conversion...alchemy had been out lawed by the Church in science law.

Science law was all known science laws against life survival on Earth O God.

Therefore when a male counts by linear....1, 2, 3 first of all he is told 101010101010101010, is not even there, rationally. His first lie as a scientist.

Second lie O time is natural gas burning light cooled as light is burning.

Gas burning to be just light is not cooled...as coloured separated gases.

Blue light sky is the HOLY SKY.

Coat of many colours gases related to why life was sacrificed.

And the determined travel of the body of God O through the spatial cosmological journey as a STONE ARK said that the coat of many colours was healing and being given back by the SAVIOUR wandering star....all of the Messengers received to God Earth that saved it from not exploding in the UFO pyramid attack.

COSMOLOGICAL relativity already said....the Universe of the Sun plus Earth and the Holy travellers following the Earth, as God bodies......had been saved historically by the fall of God the angels in the cosmos.

Into the Satanic deep pit of space was a relativity story about why the Sun and planets not exploded still existed.

It was not an explanation on how to cause it.

 

[Igtheism]

>>O circular beginnings as a theory in science says in the beginning everything was burning/irradiated.<<

Speaking of "circular", I'd like to interject some circular definitions of "God" if you don't think I'm off topic here. After all "First Cause" is given as a purported definition of "God".

What theists say amounts to this circular definition:

"God is that which created everything except God".

It allegedly defines "God" in terms of "God". So it essentially "defines" "God" as "God".

Anselm's definition is also circular:

"God is a being than which no greater can be conceived"

That leaves understood the phrase "than God" that makes it circular:

"God is a being than which no greater [than God] can be conceived".

You have to already know of something that "God" meant in order to have something to compare "those that are no greater than" to. "No greater than what??? The "what" is "God".

But when that phrase [than God] is omitted, it tricks people into thinking it isn't there, and they don't recognize the circularity.

Many purported definitions of "God", upon analysis, show that they are merely attempts at defining "God" in terms of "God".

 

[rational experiences]

If a human self came out of the eternal spirit and quotes and I was sacrificed, it was because their eternal spirit was converted. Hence the male scientist was a long time ago given the encoded self presence human information on how to convert.

If God the stone crystalline higher mass existed in a pressure and cold clear light gas atmosphere not burning...then he knows it did...for his thoughts are recorded in the state AI.

He knew what the Sun did to the Earth God higher mass of stone, and also knew that stone nearly burst into particularisation core release...by cause of Sun knew...and he also knew O that the stone planet in its stone/gas expansion was saved by water mass.

How else did you come to the conclusion that it was safe to apply water mass to a stone gas/removal of a huge pressurized mass in spatial history and not die?

You knew...why you said O God the irradiated expanding stone/God gas body with particle formation was saved by water pressure and mass.

So O water became the seal of God, the stone as pi...and the o same gases burning/gases cold, and water makes the same o circulating signal in the atmosphere.

Consciousness therefore says it always knew the higher held sealed state was Pi O as a water based bio life/consciousness, and knew that it was the higher state of God and life existing in an atmospheric supported conscious life.

Why today nuclear sciences is a known Destroyer for trying to claim that PHI was anything else than science caused nuclear radiation gas burning fall out attack on life.

Otherwise humanity would ask, why is life being attacked if PHI is stated to be our Creator? It would make no sense. G O and the attack to try to split D, remained in the heavenly mass to keep us safe and that status was never phi....it was change to natural by science.

 

[nPeace]

Sure. And it is possible the universe was sneezed into existence by an invisible pink unicorn. That doesn't mean I take the possibility seriously.

Your imagination appears to be running wild. What... do you think of the universe as an invisible pink unicorn's mucus?
We don't see that in our experience, but we see this...

...every day.
So why is a supreme creator a problem to you?

OK, what third possibility do you see?

I am not clear on the concept of the two possibilities you gave.
Are you saying, time either had a beginning, or it didn't? If that is what you are saying, finitely far into the past is relative depending on your idea of time.
Time from whose perspective? Man's?
Time could be finitely in to the past, outside of man's perspective, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. Is it?

And if it didn't, it simply exists. Why make things more complicated?

I am not the one insisting on ifing. Why make things convenient for yourself, when things simply are not siding with you?
Is it because Polymath257 must be right?

Not even close. For example, I am not saying the multiverse is conscious. I am not saying the multiverse gives moral guidance. I am not saying the multiverse had an intention.

You don't need to. I doubt the spaghetti monster has much of a brain.

And I agree with this criticisms. There are *some* theories that allow for testing of multiverse concepts, primarily because of gravitational interactions. The rest are, frankly, mysticism, and not deserving of the name of science.

Namely?

So you can't say anything about it, even that it exists. At that point, it seems like silliness to me.

Where did you get that idea from? Surely not from me. Much has been said about the supernatural. Some people just aren't listening. You said you are not interested, so there you go.

 

[Polymath257]

Your imagination appears to be running wild. What... do you think of the universe as an invisible pink unicorn's mucus?
We don't see that in our experience, but we see this...
..every day.
So why is a supreme creator a problem to you?

No problem. Just no reason to think there is one. All your pictures are of human activities. The vast majority of the universe is not produced by the working of intelligence, but rather through the workings of natural laws.

I am not clear on the concept of the two possibilities you gave.
Are you saying, time either had a beginning, or it didn't? If that is what you are saying, finitely far into the past is relative depending on your idea of time.
Time from whose perspective? Man's?
Time could be finitely in to the past, outside of man's perspective, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. Is it?

I'm not sure what your objection is here. Time on Mars is the same as on Earth and is the same as in another galaxy.

Yes, I am saying that time either started at some point in the past or that it had no beginning. In either case, however, it cannot have been caused because causes happen inside of time.

I am not the one insisting on ifing. Why make things convenient for yourself, when things simply are not siding with you?
Is it because Polymath257 must be right?

I am exploring possibilities and figuring out which ones are actually possible. There are several options, but none leads to a supernatural as far as I can see.

You don't need to. I doubt the spaghetti monster has much of a brain.

Nor does a God. But that also does not address my point.

Namely?

Like I said, some multiverse theories can be tested by looking at the effects of gravity from 'other universes' on ours. Those that can be tested are potentially scientific. Those that cannot are not.

Where did you get that idea from? Surely not from me. Much has been said about the supernatural. Some people just aren't listening. You said you are not interested, so there you go.

And what you find is a morass of contradictory stuff. Sort of what you would expect if people are just making it up.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"... Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all."

Edward Feser: Edwards on infinite causal series

 

[Willamena]

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

Because a verb requires a subject.

 

[rational experiences]

"... Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all."

Edward Feser: Edwards on infinite causal series

Meaning is self first. Why the scientist says man is first as a God quote.

For if you abstract self from owning existence, when you did naturally to be a self on God....then in the abstract you equate how you believe you gained self presence.

Which said my owned self and also God both had come out of the eternal body and been sacrificed....now owned lower form. How it was stated by the psyche.

 

[osgart]

Hold that thought!

 

[Igtheism]

"Willamena<<<Because a verb requires a subject.>>>

I like that, Willamena, "a verb needs a subject". Re: this thread title "First cause". "Cause" ("THE cause") is really a verb ("TO cause") that people have made into a noun form. But making it into a noun form does not give the verb a defined subject. The language trick played needs to be exposed. People think the verb "created (the universe)" has a subject but it really doesn't. Word-surgeons operated on the verb "created". With their scalpel, they chopped the "ed" off the end of the verb "created" and replaced it with "or", making it have a grammatical noun form, "creator (of the universe)". That made them think they had defined the row of three alphabet letters "God". But they haven't. They've only fooled themselves with word surgery. They just put the alphabet letters "G-o-d" together with their noun-form of the verb "create", namely "creator", and concocted the sentence-like string "God is the creator of the universe". But that's just the same as saying the subject-less nonsense string of words "created the universe". There is no concept at all -- just word surgery and trickery -- plus feelings and emotions. . The verb "created" (the universe) doesn't have a defined subject. Sticking three letters "G-o-d" together doesn't give the verb "created" a subject. People are just tricked by the word surgery I mentioned. But there is no concept of anything to label "God". If there were, surely somebody would have described the concept or told me how to have that concept by now. Disagree? Then please describe the concept for me, and make sure your verbs have a well-defined subject. I can't fall for word trickery. Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

No problem. Just no reason to think there is one. All your pictures are of human activities. The vast majority of the universe is not produced by the working of intelligence, but rather through the workings of natural laws.

That's your opinion. It's not a fact. ...and I might add, it's a biased opinion, at that
Just because people may have conflicting opinions, or may tell lies about you, doesn't make you a non existence, does it? Let's be reasonable here Polymath257, and not cater to emotional preferences.

What's a natural law?

You do not know what's natural? Do you? Prove it, and you will begin to make sense.
Why not start with gravity. Prove that gravity is natural.
Natural, is a concept, based on man's limited understanding... of which he should humbly admit, he doesn't understand.
Rather, he prefers to say, "We don't know." out of one side of his mouth, and out of the other side, he says, "We know." Then he wakes up the next morning, and accepts the phrase, "scientists thought", but never would he say, "We thought we knew." Well, at least the humble scientists does. I tip my hat to them.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. Time on Mars is the same as on Earth and is the same as in another galaxy.

Yes, I am saying that time either started at some point in the past or that it had no beginning. In either case, however, it cannot have been caused because causes happen inside of time.

You seem to be speaking of time, regardless of man's perspective. In that case, I would say, there is no question then - no option - time is infinite.
One can't refer to time in that sense, and the create an option, where time is finite. That would be the equivalent of saying God had to begin, or in other words, something had to be before God. Madness, evidently.

I am exploring possibilities and figuring out which ones are actually possible. There are several options, but none leads to a supernatural as far as I can see.

Oh, I see. So there are none. You just hoped I would accept your claim. In other words, you have ideas that are not tested, and as far as we know, might never be... and may be supernatural - as far as you don't want to see.
When your ideas are accepted in science, you can officially say, "There are *some* theories that allow for testing of multiverse".
Until then, you basically have ideas, you are hoping to propose.

Nor does a God. But that also does not address my point.

Please don't just say things, because you can.
You don't know. ...and the collection of historical documents about God, written by eyewitnesses, says he does have a mind - he is an intelligent entity.

It does address your point, which was... that the multiverse cannot compare to God, or the supernatural, because, to quote you...Quote - I am not saying the multiverse is conscious. I am not saying the multiverse gives moral guidance. I am not saying the multiverse had an intention. - Unquote.
I'm saying, the ideas you present, in order to ridicule, such as the spaghetti monster, may not have a mind, and do not. The point is, they cannot be falsified.

Like I said, some multiverse theories can be tested by looking at the effects of gravity from 'other universes' on ours. Those that can be tested are potentially scientific. Those that cannot are not.

"The effects of gravity from 'other universes."
Oh dear. So when you see effects, you are going to attribute those effects to an imaginary multiverse??? Oh dear. Dark Matter and Dark Energy will be understood by then, surely. So there will be no more question marks.
MJ sang, "I don't know whether to laugh, or cry." I'd better smile.

And what you find is a morass of contradictory stuff. Sort of what you would expect if people are just making it up.

Donald J. Trump must be made up then.

 

[night912]

Me<<I claim that the words "the universe was created" can make no sense...….I'd like to discuss that point with somebody, if anybody is interested.<<<

Looks like I won the prize with that post. Is anybody interested in discussing that? Debating that? Refuting that?

Sorry to break it to you, but you can't win a match if that match never happened. I'm thinking that the reason why there weren't any responses was because people had the same reason that I had. They probably noticed the same thing that I did.

To have a better understanding of what getting at, I'll just give a description of a scenario that can be use as an analogy.

Suppose that you and I are scheduled for a MMA match against each other in the UFC. I was the first fighter, so after I was introduced, I entered the cage and waited for my opponent(that's you) to enter the cage. Once you've your entrance and had been introduced to the audience, you entered the cage. But to the audiences' the referee's, and my surprised, instead of having the proper gears needed, you entered the cage carrying your a tv and a video game console. Once you're inside, you immediatly begin playing the UFC video game. The referee took one look at what ended

>>night912<<Before all that, one must first show that it [the universe] was created.

I claim that the words "the universe was created" can make no sense. Why? Because it's like saying "The Internet came into being because somebody googled 'how to create the Internet' and followed the instructions from that website". That's not a false statement, but an utterance that can't make any sense, because "googling" is defined in terms of the already existent Internet. Before the Internet, "googling" could have made no sense. Same for "creating" and "universe". The only way we learn words is from hearing or reading other people using them, or reading how others use them from the dictionary. So we could only have learned the word "created" -- and therefore can only interpret and understand the word "created" -- in terms of one part of the universe creating another part of the universe. Examples would be "Edison created the light bulb" and "that bird created that nest". In other words, the word "created" is defined in terms of two parts of an already existing universe. That is to say, the universe must already be assumed to exist so that the word "created" could be defined in terms of two parts of the universe, one to create the other. Thus "created the universe" cannot make any sense. I'd like to discuss that point with somebody, if anybody is interested.

But you never gave a reason why the concept of "the universe was created" cannot make any sense. Can you provide a reason for as to why?