First cause

[Shad]

how exactly is that a bad thing?

Bad? I do not think bad is the right word. It would be irrational and following an assumption as if true.

How is it any different from your above quoted part?

As mysterious is different from following an idea which is an assertion as if true. Mysterious is about what we do not know while following an infinite chain of causes is a claim of knowledge based on the logic of the idea being proposed is true. Ergo we know there is a chain of causes that are infinite. We just have no yet identified what is a cause of another cause and so on. Confusing can cover a lack of knowledge nor merely being unable to grasp a concept.

 

[McBell]

Bad? I do not think bad is the right word. It would be irrational and following an assumption as if true.



As mysterious is different from following an idea which is an assertion as if true. Mysterious is about what we do not know while following an infinite chain of causes is a claim of knowledge based on the logic of the idea being proposed is true. Ergo we know there is a chain of causes that are infinite. We just have no yet identified what is a cause of another cause and so on. Confusing can cover a lack of knowledge nor merely being unable to grasp a concept.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Shad]

I am not aware of this knowledge. So, has scientists agreed that the universe is eternal, or is that rather not an obsolete theory, with no supporting evidence?

Eternal is a time reference. Spacetime is a property of the universe. Ergo the universe is eternal as spacetime is part of it not separate from it.

If so, and the universe did have a starting point, would it not require a cause, and if it does, then would there not be a first cause, which would / could be that starting point - requiring no cause, since it would be eternal?

That would make the universe the prime mover which is what people call God in first cause arguments.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am not aware of this knowledge. So, has scientists agreed that the universe is eternal, or is that rather not an obsolete theory, with no supporting evidence?
If so, and the universe did have a starting point, would it not require a cause, and if it does, then would there not be a first cause, which would / could be that starting point - requiring no cause, since it would be eternal?

I think so. Because science says, matter and energy don't disappear, but convert to one another. That means, there cannot be a time, when matter or energy did not exist. Religion in my view says same thing. Because Religion says God is eternal. How can we imagine a time, God did not have any creation? It is, as if, God was sitting alone from eternity, and at some point He learned He should start creating. It is not logical, to imagine this about an all-knowing God. Thus As long as God existed, He had a creation.

 

[Polymath257]

Which can't be possible without breaking the laws of nature (whichever word is appropriate to the context)?

No, it would be breaking the hypothesis that everything has a cause. That may or may not be how nature works. it may well be that there are events with no cause.

 

[Polymath257]

To avoid the impractical position of an infinite chain of causes. For every cause (a) we find we would have to assume there is cause of (a) called (b) itself which in turn has a cause called (c) /repeat forever. We would have to assume there is a chain of contingent causes going back forever based only on an assumption that the model of infinite chains is true.

Why would that be inconvenient? or impractical? If anything, it seems eminently reasonable and likely.

 

[nPeace]

Eternal is a time reference. Spacetime is a property of the universe. Ergo the universe is eternal as spacetime is part of it not separate from it.

Can you give a reference for this please?

That would make the universe the prime mover which is what people call God in first cause arguments.

If the universe did not begin, one might have reason to call it the prime mover. As far as I know, that is not the case.
Secondly, the universe would have to possess a mind - intelligence, in order to merit the title God, in the true sense of the word. It doesn't.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not aware of this knowledge. So, has scientists agreed that the universe is eternal, or is that rather not an obsolete theory, with no supporting evidence?
If so, and the universe did have a starting point, would it not require a cause, and if it does, then would there not be a first cause, which would / could be that starting point - requiring no cause, since it would be eternal?

At this point, we simply don't know. The basic BB theory has a beginning to time. So time would not eternal if it is completely correct.

HOWEVER, we know that quantum effects need to be taken into account. And *some* theories of quantum gravity allow for the 'singularity' of the Big Bang to be 'smoothed out' allowing for time to be eternal again.

Until we get a good, testable theory of quantum gravity, this is going to remain an open question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Personally, I do not really care one way or the other.
If the truth of it were to be revealed, it would not change my life outside what others do with the information that directly involves me.

That being said, I have no reason to believe there is a "first cause".
Of course, at this point, I can not discount that I am prejudiced about it do to my only ever hearing about it in failed attempts to "prove god".

Do you have an objective idea of why this may be so in and of itself?

For sake of conversation rather than personal needed contemplation.

 

[Polymath257]

Eternal is a time reference. Spacetime is a property of the universe. Ergo the universe is eternal as spacetime is part of it not separate from it.

There is still the question of whether time makes sense infinitely into the past or whether it had a 'beginning'. In the standard Big Bang model, time is NOT infinite into the past. In some version of quantum gravity, it is.

 

[McBell]

Do you have an objective idea of why this may be so in and of itself?

What specifically?
My suspected prejudice?
that it would not directly effect me?
That is may effect others who in turn would effect me?

 

[Shad]

Thank you for the clarification.

Keep in mind I am talking about the arguments regarding first causes and prime mover. People can believe in either conclusion without knowing anything about the arguments. After all God is taught as a fact to the young without these arguments being included. These arguments come after the fact that someone thinks God is a fact from religious indoctrination.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is impractical and an assertion.

I can see why it may be impractical. Do you think the reason people think there's a first cause is because of confusion? Is it beneficial (from their view) to them regardless the practicality of it; if so, how?

 

[Polymath257]

Is there something wrong with believing in infinite chain of causes?

Is it confusing for people? Too mysterious?

I see it as completely reasonable and natural. But then, I am a mathematician.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What specifically?
My suspected prejudice?
that it would not directly effect me?
That is may effect others who in turn would effect me?

Yes. Do you have a specific thought or guess why a person would think there is a first cause.

No.

No. The question isn't personal

No. It's not personal.

 

[Shad]

There is still the question of whether time makes sense infinitely into the past or whether it had a 'beginning'. In the standard Big Bang model, time is NOT infinite into the past. In some version of quantum gravity, it is.

Yup that is the major hold up for the BB. The BB model itself stops before point 1 of time even if the time number is tiny in our view.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see it as completely reasonable and natural. But then, I am a mathematician.

Shrugs. Call me dumb. Maybe humans want to believe we create as an ego thing. Then, I'm more of an artist minded, so I can see originality in creation but on the other hand, we do use other things to create new ideas rather than claim we made it out of thin air. Origin of ideas not the tools to create them.

 

[nPeace]

I think so. Because science says, matter and energy don't disappear, but convert to one another. That means, there cannot be a time, when matter or energy did not exist. Religion in my view says same thing. Because Religion says God is eternal. How can we imagine a time, God did not have any creation? It is, as if, God was sitting alone from eternity, and at some point He learned He should start creating. It is not logical, to imagine this about an all-knowing God. Thus As long as God existed, He had a creation.

From my understanding, energy is not the universe, and matter is energy transformed. It doesn't disappear, as in go out of space, since it is transposed (for lack of a better word) to energy.
As regards God, I don't think we humans get to decide what God is, since our mind is so vastly limited, to even understand the nature of spirit. We don't even comprehend how complex our own brain is.
I think one can understand what we can about God, from the oldest book about him. Not the imitations.
That's my perspective.

 

[Shad]

I can see why it may be impractical. Do you think the reason people think there's a first cause is because of confusion?

No. That is due to religions which proposes a primer mover as the first cause which is not contingent that is called God. These arguments are made to validate an existing belief of God which in taught without the philosophical arguments. Aquinas was a Christian and member of an order long before he came up with his rationalizations to continue believing something he was told to believe.

Is it beneficial (from their view) to them regardless the practicality of it; if so, how?

As per the above it reinforces their existing belief in God. It is a coping device and rationalization to keep believing what they were indoctrinated to believe at a young age.

Keep in mind the arguments being addressed are centuries old made by religious figures or people that already were monotheists.

 

[Shad]

I see it as completely reasonable and natural. But then, I am a mathematician.

Math will do that as math isn't a thing of existences. These arguments cover things that exist. First cause is based on nature itself. You have parents who have parents, etc.