First cause

[ChristineM]

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

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

I am a bit late on this thread, I've only just seen it...

As i know, the laws of physics (nature) as understood in our universe did not begin to coalesc until a finite period after the bb. So perhaps cause and effect did not exist or at least not in its present form.

 

[Willamena]

Spirituality is different view than english grammar, though. I personally don't see anything created just formed into being from already pre-existing things.

Maybe another way to put it, why do things that exist need to have a first cause.
How do you connect what's here and a "creator"?

IMO, the creator isn't absent. It isn't lacking. It's not missing, hidden, or invisible. It's us, as the world.

I don't think that's the response you were looking for. Not a religious response.

A verb needs a subject, hence when we "see" things with our eyes, when we "feel" things with our skin, when we "hear" things with our ears and "taste" things with our tongues, we have separated ourselves (supported by language) from the things we are sensing. It's an illusion, though: we not distinct from the world. Taste is us, smell is us, sound is us, and sight is us: these things are the world.

We've a very special language, developed from an idea that we are separate from the world, and so in its use, reinforcing that separation from the world. We humans are special that way.

The first cause, to me, has always been the world beyond our senses that brings sensation into being. Since (the concept of) existence relies on us, it needn't be anything more.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That doesn't seem to be the sustaining cause at all, but rather the temporal cause. Which was the whole point of the objection.

/... /

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. There is a feedback loop (in time) where the hand acts on itself through the stick and stone, etc. They are part of a system. But the causal links are within the system and through time.

Even so the motion is transferred. The causal relationship is transitive. The first cause sustains the whole thing. The motion is distributed transitively to the rest of the chain. First cause is primary and others are instrumental. This is the difference with the begetting example, which is not transitive causal relationship.

We must decide, it seems, whether simultaneity is essential to this brand of causal series. I have relinquished it for reasons of modern science--and hence to speak to contemporary listeners a language that seems more plausible. To employ an already used example [train], if the elastic couple stretches a bit when it is pulled, then there seems to be some time lapse between the engine starting in forward motion and the box cars starting in forward motion. But perhaps the move available to us, to 'thomisize' the modern science outlook, would be to consider the train as a simple body. What if we view the engine, the elastic couple to its to posterior cars, and well as each of those cars and their links, as one, as a unit that is moved? (Edward N. Martin: Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas) ​

In other words, standing on the Earth, which is what produces the gravity for all those stones. But then, the Earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of the galaxy.

Earth orbits but we are talking about standing. Earth is in this regard stand-alone. Ultimate ground.

And why would you expect there to be a separate 'ground' for existence? Why not just say things exist?

The "Ground" of being is not separate. It is ("I am that I am"). Things that exist (participate) are differently. Their existence is contingent. They are composed of potentiality and actuality... God is in this regard Actus purus.

 

[rational experiences]

The status of self awareness, is that the scientist is only discussing in relativity his SCIENCE.

You use science quotes that are human imposed, for humans as males who invented statements for science....no body else invented science or the statements science but a human.

So what you claim everyday is relative, is only relative in fact to science and science history from its owned beginnings.

For science is not and never was CREATION...for all creation historically existed, before the first male group decided to invent the themes and statements science.

And FORM he said existed, and form ULA says, second. To take form from form as a secondary, not first nor original nor one status.

If you live on a SEALED planet by water mass history and say it is first and one...then science does not in any form of thinking own ONE...the first.

Instead the science mind displaces self to an agreement which is to say the beginning is in space...meaning nothing/emptiness and with the one body of their pursuit...cold radiation mass. Where it is. And it is not anywhere else.

So then how do you as a scientist gain your first cause, as a scientist in reality?

You heat it. So your first science cause no longer exists.

God O he says historically is a cold gas mass stone pressurized form in out of space...relative to GOD as ONE. So first a scientist places natural into separation...and it is his owned first lie.

To form separation themes.

Then next form of separation, is to place mind with volcanic eruption to hot gases surrounding Earth...its atmospheric beginnings. So science says I cannot cross over the burn...in relativity. First atmospheric string. Burning gases.

 

[Igtheism]

I am a bit late on this thread, I've only just seen it...

As i know, the laws of physics (nature) as understood in our universe did not begin to coalesc until a finite period after the bb. So perhaps cause and effect did not exist or at least not in its present form.

ChristineM>>>>My complaint is that "first cause"-talking and "big bang"-talking is equivalent to babbling, because when you do that kind of talking, you're talking without thinking of anything you could be talking about. You're just tricking yourself into thinking you're talking about something you're thinking about when you're not. There is no action, only things acting. There is no behavior, only things behaving. There is no motion, only people and things moving. There is no time, only people timing. There are no qualities, only qualified people and qualified things. There is no consciousness, only conscious people and conscious animals. Abstract nouns of the language do not refer to anything, only concrete nouns do. There is no gravity, only things gravitating. There is no physics, only people labeled 'physicists' doing experiments and doing math ("mathing") and figuring out what and how things behave and move. There is no chemistry, only chemicals, and chemicals reacting -- and people labeled 'chemists' putting chemicals together. There is no philosophy, only people labeled 'philosophers' philosophizing. There are no causes, only things causing other things to move. There are no "firsts", only things behaving like they never have behaved before. We speak "big bang", but there are no bangs, only things banging. I hope the trend of English teachers requiring students to use fewer and fewer abstract nouns will someday cause people to start thinking like this. I am not saying that we should throw all abstract nouns out of the language, but just throw them out of our thinking and realize that 'all there is are things moving further apart, closer together, or staying the same distance apart'. It's like Peggy Lee sang "That's all there is".

 

[ChristineM]

@Igtheism

You post was messed up, but i gleaned a little of what you say. I didn't get far because of my condition walls of text blind me

There is evidence the universe is expanding and evidence of a BB. This evidence can be observed and measured.

You are welcome to ignore evidence if your belief instructs you to ignore evidence, that makes no difference the the fact that the evidence exists.

A job description is a job description, they are useful for describing jobs.

 

[rational experiences]

Even God information says that the God bodies of eternal sound mass burst and owned the big bang...but owned pre form.

Science says pre form changed....how is that not the same statement?

 

[Igtheism]

@Igtheism

ChristineM>>You post was messed up,<<

How was it messed up?

ChristineM<<There is evidence the universe is expanding<<<

I agree that things are moving apart. That's been shown.

ChristineM<<<and evidence of a BB.<<<

Nope. Nothing has banged. But I agree that things are moving apart.

ChristineM<<<This evidence can be observed and measured.<<<

If you're talking about things are moving apart, then I agree that scientists have shown that things are moving apart, and they label what they have shown by "the universe is expanding". The BB-talking is just babbling.

ChristineM<<<You are welcome to ignore evidence>>>

But I haven't ignored what scientists have shown.

ChristineM<<if your belief>>>

Belief? Why are you labeling a LACK of believing that abstract nouns refer to things, but that only concrete nouns do, 'a belief'?

ChristineM<<<instructs you to ignore evidence,>>>

But I haven't ignored any.

ChristineM<<that makes no difference the fact that the evidence exists.>>>

But I haven't ignored any.

ChristineM<<<A job description is a job description, they are useful for describing jobs.>>>

There are no descriptions, only people describing things by speaking or writing. I repeat.
There is no time, only people timing. There is no gravity, only things gravitating. There are no actions, only people acting and things acting. There is no consciousness, only conscious people and animals.

 

[ChristineM]

@Igtheism

In the same way you post 388 is messed up.

How s it messed up? All that i see is quoted text and a click to expand button. Only then is your text visible and difficult to read

The usual reason for this is either damaging the closing quote marker or placing your own text within the quotes. Your text should follow the closing quote.

Red shift, the cmb, the mixture of elements, the echos of the event are all evidence of the BB.

Whether it actually made noise, no, there was no atmosphere to transmit noise. The name is an unfortunate misrepresentation and commonly misunderstood. However the echos of the event are evidence that even 13+ billion years later the event can still be heard.

You made the statement about dumping abstract nouns, don't try shifting your comments on to me

Sheesh, people describing things is not a description?... Have you any idea what you are saying her e?

So tell the language compilers who create dictionaries that they are wrong.. there may even be a nobel prize for literature in it if you are proven correct

 

[Igtheism]

tChristineM:<<<Red shift, the cmb, the mixture of elements, the echos of the event are all evidence of the BB.>>>

It is only evident that things are moving apart, which you and scientists label "The universe is expanding". I use the label "Things are moving apart", that's what they mean, in fact they are moving apart acceleratingly. It is not evident that anything "banged big". People can do their big-banging-talking all they please, but it is only evident that "things are moving apart acceleratingly".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you keep an open mind about science finding something new and different that will cause "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" ..

Yeah, as a follower of science I have to keep my mind open to all possibilities, something changing from existence to non-existence (a step beyond virtual particles), in theories where there is bang and in theories where there is no bang, the universe being finite or infinite, curved or flat. There are so many things about which science is not sure.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is only evident that things are moving apart, which you and scientists label "The universe is expanding". I use the label "Things are moving apart", that's what they mean, in fact they are moving apart acceleratingly. It is not evident that anything "banged big". People can do their big-banging-talking all they please, but it is only evident that "things are moving apart acceleratingly".

False. That things are moving apart is part of the evidence that the universe developed from a hot dense state about 13 billion years ago (the "big bang theory"). The CMB is another piece of the evidence that is independent of things moving apart.

Science builds models that make testable predictions, when those predictions can be confirmed, that's called evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

tChristineM:<<<Red shift, the cmb, the mixture of elements, the echos of the event are all evidence of the BB.>>>

It is only evident that things are moving apart, which you and scientists label "The universe is expanding". I use the label "Things are moving apart", that's what they mean, in fact they are moving apart acceleratingly. It is not evident that anything "banged big". People can do their big-banging-talking all they please, but it is only evident that "things are moving apart acceleratingly".

Actually the cmb and original elements are evidence of the bb, the echos are evidence the bb was powerful and red shift are evidence of acceleration, in all directions. Showing that galaxies were much closer together in the past. Logic dictates that if things are big but were smaller in the past, then further in the past they reach point t=O. I.e. what is called the big bang. This was recognised as early as 1940s

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is not evident that anything "banged big".

But I did hear a bang, didn't you?

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, as a follower of science I have to keep my mind open to all possibilities, something changing from existence to non-existence (a step beyond virtual particles), in theories where there is bang and in theories where there is no bang, the universe being finite or infinite, curved or flat. There are so many things about which science is not sure.

The universe is measured as flat to 6 decimal places.

Of course it could show evidence of curve above those 6 decimal places but as it stands it is understood that the universe is flat (within the bounds of accuracy)

Measurement was made by determining the angle between earth and 2 known points the CMB.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The important point in my post is that a person of science cannot close his/her eyes to possibilities, even multiverse or strings, but of course not an eternal God or Allah.

 

[Igtheism]

Aupmanyav<<<Yeah, as a follower of science I have to keep my mind open to all possibilities, something changing from existence to non-existence (a step beyond virtual particles), in theories where there is bang and in theories where there is no bang, the universe being finite or infinite, curved or flat. There are so many things about which science is not sure.<<<

There is no bangs, only things banging. "To bang" is a verb. What would be the subject of the verb "to bang"? If nothing bangs, there's nothing to call "a big bang". Somebody used false reasoning and thought that since the red shifting showed that things are flying apart, this was like shrapnel flying apart from a hand grenade exploding, and since a hand grenade goes "bang!" something must have gone "bang!". That's where they got their "big-bang"-talking. But there wasn't anything banging. Do you agree that there is no time, only people timing? Do you agree that there is no consciousness, only conscious people and conscious animals? Do you agree that there is no gravity, only things gravitating? If you disagree, tell me why.

 

[ratiocinator]

"To bang" is a verb.

And "bang" is a noun, so what? You seem to have a bizarre idea that you can argue about the universe using grammar.

Somebody used false reasoning and thought that since the red shifting showed that things flying apart was like shrapnel flying apart from a hand grenade exploding, and since a hand grenade goes "bang!" something must have gone "bang!".

False. The BB theory isn't about "things flying apart was like shrapnel flying apart from a hand grenade", that's a popular misconception, and not the basis of the BB theory.

 

[ChristineM]

Somebody used false reasoning and thought that since the red shifting showed that things are flying apart, this was like shrapnel flying apart from a hand grenade exploding, and since a hand grenade goes "bang!" something must have gone "bang!".

Thank goodness your understanding is not required for the standard cosmological model.

Do you agree that there is no time, only people timing?

The human concept of time is not really relevant, time ensured one thing happens after another, that entropy only works one way. Way beyond the watch on your wrist.

Do you agree that there is no consciousness, only conscious people and conscious animals?

.

What? There is no consciousness except consciousness? Wow... Just wow

Do you agree that there is no gravity,

Yet gravity works, stops you floating away. Mass has gravity. Whether another object is attracted to it makes no difference.

 

[Igtheism]

>>>ChristineM<<<Thank goodness your understanding is not required for the standard cosmological model.<<​

>>>ChristineM<<<What do you think I don't understand?...The human concept of time...<<<

There are no concepts, there are only people conceptualizing. We only speak as though there are things called "concepts". There is no time, only people 'timing'. We only speak as though there is some stuff called "time". The only reason people say "the concept of time" instead of "people conceptualizing about people timing" is because the grammar has evolved in such a way that we allow verbs to be to be used as nouns. It's shorter and more convenient to talk that way. I talk that way myself, even though I don't here to illustrate my point. But the difference is that I realize that it's only a matter of grammar. The cosmos doesn't operate by grammar rules. But there is still nothing called "time". When we speak as though there is something called "time", we are only talking about people timing, or people who have timed and recorded their timing measurements.

>>>ChristineM<<<is not really relevant,<< ​

Even so, people need to understand that there is no stuff nor anything called "time", only people timing. As I said above, the cosmos does not care about grammar rules. There are only people timing, regardless of how many people say "No, you're wrong, there is something besides people timing, there is time itself". But there isn't. There are only people timing, whether accurately or inaccurately.

<<<time ensured one thing happens after another, that entropy only works one way. Way beyond the watch on your wrist.<<

There is nothing called "entropy". We just talk as if there were. There are only orderly things becoming disorderly or more randomly. Scientists have a way of measuring of how disorderly or random things are, and they say "This is the measure of entropy". But there is nothing called "entropy". I know about what scientists label "The second law of thermodynamics."

>>>ChristineM<<<What? There is no consciousness except consciousness? Wow... Just wow

You said that, I didn't. So wow, just wow yourself if you think there is some stuff called "consciousness" that's something besides conscious people and conscious animals? There are plenty of conscious people. I'm a conscious person. You're a conscious person. My dogs are conscious animals. But there is no stuff called "consciousness". If you think there is, you should not let grammar trick you that way. The language has evolved grammatically so that we stick "ness" on the end of an adjective "conscious" and we can speak as though there is some stuff called "consciousness", but there isn't. Maybe that tricks you into thinking there is something besides conscious people and conscious animals called "consciousness". If so, you should stop, think and realize that there are only conscious people and conscious animals, and there is nothing other than conscious people and animals labeled "consciousness". We just speak as though there were. If you are grammar-tricked, you should get over it and face reality.

>>>ChristineM<<<Yet gravity works, stops you floating away. ​

Indeed we do talk that way. But what happens is that I tend to gravitate toward the center of the earth. But the dirt, rocks, and iron under my feet between me and the center of the earth prevent me from gravitating down there.

>>Mass has gravity.<<

Mass is a measurement found usually by weighing and dividing by the constant g of the planet you're on, most likely the earth. That way the measurement doesn't change if you go off the earth. What you mean by "mass has gravity" is that you can calculate how strongly things with other masses would tend to gravitate toward it. The more mass something has, the stronger things will tend to gravitate toward it.

>>Whether another object is attracted to it makes no difference.<<

Indeed. It's a measurement of how strongly things WOULD tend to gravitate toward it IF they WERE attracted to it. [Not DO, BECAUSE, and ARE]. Believe it or not, I took physics in high school and college. I just don't let abstract nouns trick me into thinking they refer to stuff just because the language happened to have evolved so that we talk as if they do.