Putting aside the term God, would you agree?

[Segev Moran]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

 

[Altfish]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

The jury is still out so no, I don't agree.

This book gives a possible explanation...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Nothing-Lawrence-M-Krauss/dp/1471112683

 

[Altfish]

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

But where does this 'initiator' come from?

 

[Segev Moran]

The jury is still out so no, I don't agree.

This book gives a possible explanation...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Nothing-Lawrence-M-Krauss/dp/1471112683

Lawrence Kraus's definition of nothing is not really nothing.
Read the book

 

[Koldo]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

I don't think there was a time before time. Nor a reality before our reality. You are probably thinking as if something existed standing still indefinitely and then time began when something caused it to happen. That's not how I frame it.

Consider an YouTube video. What exists before 00:00 ? Nothing. There is nothing standing still. No reality before the video. That's how I frame this situation.

 

[Altfish]

Lawrence Kraus's definition of nothing is not really nothing.
Read the book

I didn't say it was...and I have...can't say I understood all of it though.

 

[osgart]

The stuff of the big bang event could be infinite eternal stuff. Perhaps stuff cycles endlessly from low entropy to high entropy and back again.

So perhaps there is no linear cause and effect.

Stuff just is.

Nobody has yet proven that the big bang was the very first incident in existence.

I tend to think of existence as infinite possibility working on infinite things.

Then again there is nothing stopping anybody from believing in a very first incident to our existence. Its possible!
Knowing that would open the possibility up that there are other existences with creative capabilities.

But why such a brutely indifferent existence to life though?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?

Not necessarily.

I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Except it couldn't have been an "eternity" or a "stand still" because for either concept to exist time must exist. Before there was time, there is pretty-much just uncertainty. At least, I can't confirm, from a temporal human perspective, what it even means to "exist before time" and so I am completely unable to make assumptions about what that means.

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

I can agree to that.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

Again, not necessarily. If the Universe existed in the quantum state, cause and effect no longer need apply in a conventional sense.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

It all unfortunately falls down when you start applying a temporal understanding of time to a period in which time is non-existent and a cause and effect relationship to an event in which cause and effect may not necessarily apply.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

"An initial cause?" As in "a single cause" or "no more than one initial cause?" Definitely not. I see absolutely no reason to jump to that conclusion or to assume that whatever allowed one initial cause couldn't have also allowed any number of initial causes.

Also, from what I understand, there's controversy about whether causation is even a meaningful concept in the conditions at the formation of the universe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

Nice.

I do not believe life has a beginning or cause. Everything shapes, forms, and moves unto themselves and environment. Instead of a cause, we are a fluid state of being, a process of change.

Babies aren't created but come into the world formed by two already existing things, for lack of better words. I understand the need for an origin. I disagree there is one.

If you want to get technical, the initiator is energy. Its what forms and shapes the universe into how we experience it today. We are part of that energy.

As for eternity, I guess energy is eternal. Mortals and organisms arnt. I dont see how thats important.

No. There is no meaning in the universe. Its isolated. Nothing special in itself. We create meaning. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

I'm a Christian and even I don't agree with this!

 

[shunyadragon]

This question is mostly to people who lack the belief in God (Mono).

Let's put aside for a second the term God and all the ways people try and define this god.

Would you agree that there must be an initial cause to everything?
I mean that from our human POV, we today know that time had a starting point, this means that (from our POV) there was a point in our history when time "stood still". We can refer to this idea as an eternity (again, only from our POV as we don't really know what happened before that).

Also, there has to be an event (or something else ) that started the whole process of reality. even if you somehow believe that reality started itself, this means that some sort of "reality version" existed before our reality, we can refer to this as the initial state of existence.

This means that eventually, going back chronically (events wise), there must be an initiator (regardless of what that initiator is) that was there without being initiated in the first place.

So we can assume regardless of our belief that there was an initial event that was "placed" in what we can only describe as eternity as we have no understanding of time before our time.

We can also have the understanding that this thing, contained within it all our reality, meaning the universe as we know it emerged from that same initiator causing our reality to become what it is.

Thoughts?

I have no problem putting aside the word God, and I often refer to what is called God is the 'Source' some call God(s). It is a descriptive utilitarian word in the English language, and no one religion, faith, church nor belief system can claim it as their own only.

 

[Segev Moran]

I don't think there was a time before time. Nor a reality before our reality. You are probably thinking as if something existed standing still indefinitely and then time began when something caused it to happen. That's not how I frame it.

Consider an YouTube video. What exists before 00:00 ? Nothing. There is nothing standing still. No reality before the video. That's how I frame this situation.

I am familiar with this idea
It is similar to the question of is reality a reality if there is nothing to experience it?

Now imagine nothing. out of this nothing an entire existence comes to be. not only that, this existence follows a very clear and strict behavior.
So in your POV everything came out of nothing (assuming you refer to the theory that nothing is unstable and cannot remain nothing therefore it became something) with a set of behaviors as we experience.

The experiment that shows that in a vacuum a spontaneous appearance of particles takes place can be looked at in two ways:

Those particles create themselves and simply appear, or these particles are created by something and pop into existence. do you suggest that those particles simply create themselves?

 

[Segev Moran]

I didn't say it was...and I have...can't say I understood all of it though.

In a nut shell, the theory goes that in a vacuum, there are spontaneous particles being created with contrasting "currents", a positive and negative (matter and antimatter).
They appear only for a fraction of a time as they cancel each other.
The universe as we know it, should not have really existed as we observe that for every position particle, a negative one is created and they all cancel each other. our universe on the other hand, for some reason (not known yet) had positive particles remaining.
The fact those particles simply pop into existence, doesn't mean they are simply created out of thin air, i think it is logical to assume something creates those particles.

 

[Segev Moran]

Not necessarily.

I can't see how not
Lets say something came out of nothing... this initiator is either the nothing itself, which renders it as something, or it came to be our of itself, which it was itself.. no?
[/QUOTE]
Except it couldn't have been an "eternity" or a "stand still" because for either concept to exist time must exist. Before there was time, there is pretty-much just uncertainty. At least, I can't confirm, from a temporal human perspective, what it even means to "exist before time" and so I am completely unable to make assumptions about what that means.
[/QUOTE]
Imagine a movie... if you pause it on one frame.. i a way, it is in an eternal state... you will never get to the beginning or end of the movie. this is what i've meant.

Again, not necessarily. If the Universe existed in the quantum state, cause and effect no longer need apply in a conventional sense.

If the universe exited in a quantum state, it means something cause the universe to exist in that state, no?

It all unfortunately falls down when you start applying a temporal understanding of time to a period in which time is non-existent and a cause and effect relationship to an event in which cause and effect may not necessarily apply.

What you just described remarkably resembles the "description" of God
A thing that time and events does not apply to (no in our POV at least)
Same words, different language

 

[Segev Moran]

"An initial cause?" As in "a single cause" or "no more than one initial cause?" Definitely not. I see absolutely no reason to jump to that conclusion or to assume that whatever allowed one initial cause couldn't have also allowed any number of initial causes.

Also, from what I understand, there's controversy about whether causation is even a meaningful concept in the conditions at the formation of the universe.

When i say cause i mean something that triggered something else.
It can be one thing that triggered many...
At the beginning of the chain, there can be only one

 

[ameyAtmA]

Hello

Please read this: The All-Potential-Database
and cast your vote.

Thanks

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm a Christian and even I don't agree with this!

Can't see how the fact you are a christian has got anything to do with it? its a question of POV, not belief

So you don't agree that there was an initial state? or event?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Can't see how the fact you are a christian has got anything to do with it? its a question of POV, not belief

So you don't agree that there was an initial state? or event?

There may have been, or maybe not. We don't know. Going back, all models break down just after T>0

 

[ameyAtmA]

Please read this: The All-Potential-Database
and cast your vote.

Thanks

Since the universe is an eternal cyclic phenomenon, we cannot say there was one initial event, outside of time.

It is a cycle which is a circle and a circle has no beginning and no end. anAdi-ananta.

What we can say is the Database of Infinite Potential of all Possibilities is there, call it God if you must, and the potential is the cause for all expressions and all manifestations.

This is how we have
(i) Potential
(ii) Cause which is the potential