The "First Cause" Argument.

vajradhara · Sep 29, 2003

Namaste all,

here's a link to a thread on this site that has dealt with this topic in some detail:
http://www.christianforums.com/t43923

Happy Wonderer · Sep 29, 2003

mo.mentum said:
Everything needs a Cause because you can go back in time to a point where that Cause hasn't happened, so the event hasn't taken place.

At what point of time did the laws of logic not exist?

hw

Ryoko Ozaki · Sep 29, 2003

Okay then under that same logic, what caused God, mo.mentum?

mo.mentum · Sep 30, 2003

Guys Guys! Think a little.

Things that need a cause, need to function in a "time" dimension. Object A turns blue because it was hit by Object B at a certain point in space and time. There was a point in time before this event, where the cause didn't happen. So Object A was not affected.

If God created time, then He is not subject to its effects. If He is eternal, the question of who caused Him is irrelevant. Stop thinking of Him as some old bearded man atop clouds. This primitive image does Him no justice.

There is no such thing as "time before God" in order for God to be caused. He doesn't function in our way of perceiving things. Time is only affecting us because He bound us to it.

If you say that time came into existence with God or was there before God, then you're saying that something is independant of God. Whereas God by definition is the Creator of everything. Nothing precedes Him. He experiences ALL time and events "right here right now", there is no past, present, future from where He "Stands".

tankiawee · Sep 30, 2003

That is meaningless. We cannot conceive of anything as being "without" time. Out existance is defined by the passage of time. It is inconceivable by us that time can alter, since we are bound by time.

Saying that God is by definition uncaused is illogical.

Argument goes like:

1. The Universe exists.
2. Everything must have a cause.
2. Therefore the Universe must have had a cause.
3. But there cannot be an infinite chain of causes.

4. Therefore there must be a First Cause which is uncaused.

Don't you see it? Statements 2 and 4 contradict. But since statement 2 is where the argument grounds itself, if it is untrue, then the conclusion does not follow. But if the argument proceeds from statement 2 (assumed to be true temporarily) then the common conclusion is an exclusive contradiction.
That cannot be either.

Why must the conclusion that the First Cause exists be forced through logic that does not fit? There is indeed the hypocrisy that the thread starter pointed out.

Michali · Sep 30, 2003

It is something that many theorectical scientists agree with. Do you propose that there is not a First Cause? It only sounds logical to assume that there was a point when there was not time. Basically it was not even existent.

Everything that is, just began as if there was absolutely nothing before it. What could have done that in a point where not even time existed? Now, where reality cannot not exist, it is our logic that we apply the limitless theistic theory of creation. God, being the full of the zero'th dimension, decided to conceive of and create the extra dimensions. Think abstract as what it could mean to concieve of higher dimensions, by thinking why God made everything the way he did, we see that it could have easily been different and beyond our thinking.

It should not be said that God cannot do something. For he is omni-potent. It wrong to say God cannot be independant of time, God cannot create out of conception, or God cannot exist. For such a sentence is worded incorrectly.

Mike Flynn · Sep 30, 2003

tankiawee said:
3. But there cannot be an infinite chain of causes.

Who says? I know that the universe has an 'age' but that may not imply that the system of causality is finite.

Lets assume for a moment that the universe began as a point. There is alot of room for debate here...but I will mention the one I am familiar with. What we think of as space-time 'curled up' into an infinitessimally small space (but not zero)? Apparently, thermal fluctuations within that space could have led to the great expansion that gave rise to the universe...then the question becomes, what 'caused' that? QM asserts that it could have been simply random (or uncaused I suppose), but lets assume for a moment that it wasn't...just to stay on topic.

If time is NOT granular (or quantized...and there is debate on this too) then even within the space of a nanosecond you could have an INFINITE sequence of events....although I'm sure quantum theory would probably impose some limitations on this.

Some might argue...what 'caused' the dimensional space itself? It may be that it always existed. But any meaning of the word 'always' implies the passage of time...and since time may have been curled up as well, the concept of its 'passage' certainly required us to think outside of the 'clockwork universe' that seems familiar to our senses. General relativity at least gives us some sense of this.

I know this thread is about 'first cause'...but what if there isn't one, even in the strictly scientific sense?

Michali · Sep 30, 2003

I have just heard about this theory that there is a true "Greek atom". Like there is a definite building unit for energy and even measure of time. The smallest that you can get. People use it to claim that no value has reached infinity.

I have heard from them that it was this small point that was the universe at one time. This makes since, but there is the dimension of space in existence. And in this dot, there is also time. All of the dimensions are existent in this compressed universe. To me, this does not sound like the bottom of the cause and effect ladder yet. The First Cause is the uncaused cause, not the cause the started the Big Bang. This dimensional point of the smallest unit must have had its own origin. Because, what is it to exist now that we believe that existence has always been? If existence never came into being, then there is an infinity in the measurement of time, unless time had a beginning. If time had a beginning, then we may have reached our uncaused cause.

Chobo Char · Sep 30, 2003

Michali said:
Because, what is it to exist now that we believe that existence has always been? If existence never came into being, then there is an infinity in the measurement of time, unless time had a beginning. If time had a beginning, then we may have reached our uncaused cause.

Who thinks the universe has always been? Time is inextricably connected to space, both of which had their beginning at the big bang.

Mike Flynn · Sep 30, 2003

Chobo Char said:
Who thinks the universe has always been? Time is inextricably connected to space, both of which had their beginning at the big bang.

There is some debate about the structure of the cosmos just prior to the big bang. String theory maintains that the universe existed with infinitessimal curled up dimensions...random thermal fluctuations could have caused an expansion in SOME of the dimensions (space-time) leaving several others curled up. So the age of the universe you are referring to is POST big bang, if you like.

The origins of the initial curled up 'point' universe are not clearly defined. So the PRE-big bang space and its origins are not clearly dated (as far as I know).

bishnu · Sep 30, 2003

Theists argue that god has been in the void of nothingness since the "beginning"(lack of a better word) and then he created something out of the nothingness. Well i ask why cant the universe have always been becuase if god can always been then the universe could be too? The theist arguement assumes many things too
1. Time is one directional
2. Everything needs a cause except god of course
3. The universe is only cause and effect.
4. That dimesions are an absolute reality

And all these assumptions are wrong
1. According to Special Relativity time is not one directional and many scholars believe that times direction might not always be constant.
2. Since no one has seen everything come into existence is impossible to prove that there had to be a first cause and if there was i propose what i said in my thread titled creation of energy.
3. Quatum physics show thats randomness is a big part of the universe, especially at the most basic level.
4. Many scholars believe that dimesions could be a preception of the human mind or even a projection. I heard about this in i think lasts issue of sciteific America "am i a hologram"

tankiawee · Sep 30, 2003

You say that God must have been there to create, since by definition he is exempt from causality. That already contradicts statement 2 and renders your whole argument faulty.

Michali · Oct 1, 2003

The theist argument is still being miscomprehended. The fact that God can create is because he is able to do any possibility. His being existant is above the meaning of being existant. Perhaps he fills all of time and exists in every space and frame of moment. If dimensions are his creation, he is certainly not bound by them. His traits cannot be equivilated to the universe.

The Theist arguement seems to be a lot simpler than that of the atheist argument, and it does not assume 1,3,4 of your post, bishnu. In fact, it is easily the other way around. This argument is that of impossibilities and it requires something beyond any dimensional influence to solve it. The first cause was not "natural".

Now, another thing, this first true atom (all of existence), it has a legnth of one true atom. But, it does not equall two .5 true atoms. Because there is no such thing. How could "fluctuations" or disturbances of any sort occur in the space that every activity had to have a constant value of one? It would seem like an impossibility.

Jet Black · Oct 1, 2003

Michali said:
Now, another thing, this first true atom (all of existence), it has a legnth of one true atom. But, it does not equall two .5 true atoms. Because there is no such thing. How could "fluctuations" or disturbances of any sort occur in the space that every activity had to have a constant value of one? It would seem like an impossibility.

what?

Michali · Oct 1, 2003

Jet Black said:
what?

I don't know much about it, but I heard it from a couple of atheist the other day at the university. They argued that there was not an infinity, and not even an infinity in the small. They told me of a theory that scientist believe that you can eventually find the smallest substance of anything. Whether it be a moment in time or a particle of energy smaller than the planckth length (if it is). It would be the true greek atom. Indivisible and the most basic. They argue that it was not an infinitesmally* small point before the Big Vang. That it was this smallest point of measurement.

Mike Flynn · Oct 1, 2003

bishnu said:
1. According to Special Relativity time is not one directional and many scholars believe that times direction might not always be constant.
...
4. Many scholars believe that dimesions could be a preception of the human mind or even a projection. I heard about this in i think lasts issue of sciteific America "am i a hologram"

A couple of points...

I havn't heard about #1 before....as far as I know, the formulation of special relativity involves no such argument. Care to shed some 'light' on this one?

#4 raises profound questions about first cause in its own right. What do you think?

An on another note...why is it that everyone theist and atheist alike buys the idea that the universe had a first cause? What does science have to say about the nature of the pre-bang universe?

Mike Flynn · Oct 1, 2003

Michali said:
I don't know much about it, but I heard it from a couple of atheist the other day at the university. They argued that there was not an infinity, and not even an infinity in the small. They told me of a theory that scientist believe that you can eventually find the smallest substance of anything. Whether it be a moment in time or a particle of energy smaller than the planckth length (if it is). It would be the true greek atom. Indivisible and the most basic. They argue that it was not an infinitesmally* small point before the Big Vang. That it was this smallest point of measurement.

The basic idea in string theory that I have been referring to is that all 10 dimensions were curled up at approximately the planck length before the expansion (or the big bang). This space was not a greek atom. However, strings inside the space may have been. I have heard (recently, but I have not read the research) that time may NOT be quantized, meaning that there is no quantum or smallest moment in time...

I'm curious, what was the point the athiest people were trying to make here? What difference does it make if everything is quantized anyway? Just that there is no 'infinity' per se?

Michali · Oct 1, 2003

Mike Flynn said:
I'm curious, what was the point the athiest people were trying to make here? What difference does it make if everything is quantized anyway? Just that there is no 'infinity' per se?

Another ground theists have is that, infinity is chaotic without some sort of controlling force. If there is an actuall infinity, everything is possible. Which raises: "Why is there stability in existence?" They argued that there is no true infinity, and infinity is always the goal that can never be acheived. I agree, that, if there is not something like God, then there cannot be an actuall infinity.

Xenophanes, an ancient Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, once argued that there had to exist a "perfect" in infinity. He argued that there was but one true God, and it had no equall. It pre-existed, it was omni-everything, it was the only true... anything. It was the equivilant of "One", because "many" would cause every part of the perfect to be lacking something (i.e.: space). He argued that God was the most extreme constant, and everything existed in it. This God would have to be a being, which was perfect in that it contained the omni-potence to do anything, but could limit itself. Therefore, stability was possible in infinity.

Michali · Oct 1, 2003

The always existant point of dimensions is strange in that, it means something always existed. It kinda makes you wonder what existence IS (for lack of a better explanation). When I first heard of First Cause, I was intruiged that there was actuall scientific evidence of existence coming into being. But now I see that they are just assuming that there is just this "existence", and the First Cause is how it became more complex. "Existence" seems almost to lose what ever it meant, if it always was. If existence had a beginning, it was out of nothing. It is this that is the true First Cause. The one that only God could cause.

Michali · Oct 1, 2003

I have heard, also, of the extra dimensions of time. Like, some view time as a straight line, where we move forward. While, it could very well be a flat plane, or even spacial. Like, we could be moving forward at 3 "knots", to the right at an equall 3 "knots", and upwards at 2 "knots" in time. We just don't know yet how to comprehend what would happen if we took just a sole path to the right, or up. Which is something I'd like to discuss:

If time stopped moving forward, everything physical would cease to move in space. What would happen if we started moving to the right or left in time? What would be able to "move"?

The "First Cause" Argument.

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Militant Unbeliever

Lunar Mystery

[One God]

Rationalist

Teleologist

Well-Known Member

Teleologist

Dead man walking

Well-Known Member

bishnu

Guest

Rationalist

Teleologist

Jet Black

Guest

Teleologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Teleologist

Teleologist

Teleologist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency