The "First Cause" Argument.

[Nathan David]

My take on "first cause" is this. Current understanding of astrophysics is not adequate to definitively explain anything before the universe was at Planck length. Current superstring hypotheses are an attempt to get the tools to address it but they are not there yet (if they are even on the right track). In terms of classical and quantum mechanics the very beginning of the universe is a singularity, meaning the laws that apply to anything bigger than Planck length have no meaning for something as small as the natal universe. Our lack of knowledge of that time is infinite.

So some take that infinite lack of knowledge and propose an infinite creator, a thinking entity with some kind of personality that is omnipotent, at least on the large scale - capable of creating the universe and delineating what form it will take. I have to concede that is one possibility - like I said we know nothing about that time. But it is not the only possibility and it is not necessitated by the facts we know. Since we know nothing about the beginning of the universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities. It could have been a number of thinking entities, who may or may not be omnipotent in their own frame of existence. Or our universe - space, time, existence - is the result of mindless natural processes. I'm sure there are other possibilities I'm not thinking of. Since we don't have the empirical tools at this time to get more information about the natal universe, there are no grounds to reject or accept any of those possibilities.

My guess is mindless natural processes, because everything after the Planck length can be explained that way. But that's only a guess, not even a hypothesis and certainly not a belief. Until advances in science are made, first cause remains a complete and impenetrable mystery.

 

[Michali]

Ah heck, we could atleast try. The ancient philosophers of the early world had nothing but their own minds to work with. Without telescopes, they came up with some pretty close theories as to how the universe works.

About the unitarianist thought of "natural happens now as it happened then.": We know that God created, and once creation was set, he used creation like a tool. A theist belief of "natural" is God's work, which we believe to be truly natural. The atheist say natural, meaning, there was no purpose behind it and that it makes itself in an unguided fashoin.

It is like an atheist is saying that a pot made itself. They think they prove this by saying its edges were smoothed by a putty knife.
The theist just says that there was someone holding the putty knife. And that is the reason for the pots form.

 

[Mike Flynn]

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.

Sorry, this is off-topic:

Actually 'perfect' is a Greek notion that I think trickled into the Christian philosophy when the early missionaries went to Greece....I'm not quite sure if the concept of 'perfect' sits well with Judeo-Christian philosophy found in the old and new testaments. A big problem we have with biblical interpretation comes in when we read it with our Greek 'glasses' on. "God saw that ---- was GOOD"...Perfect would have meant static and complete...'Good' means there's room to grow. Not just for us, but for all life. (evolution anyone?)

Just a thought...

 

[Michali]

Sorry, this is off-topic:

Actually 'perfect' is a Greek notion that I think trickled into the Christian philosophy when the early missionaries went to Greece....I'm not quite sure if the concept of 'perfect' sits well with Judeo-Christian philosophy found in the old and new testaments. A big problem we have with biblical interpretation comes in when we read it with our Greek 'glasses' on. "God saw that ---- was GOOD"...Perfect would have meant static and complete...'Good' means there's room to grow. Not just for us, but for all life. (evolution anyone?)

Just a thought...

Hey thats good. Mike, do you believe that the Bible may be interpretted and still be taken as divine? Over the past few weeks, I've been tempted to reject the Bible as a source of complete truth.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Hey thats good. Mike, do you believe that the Bible may be interpretted and still be taken as divine? Over the past few weeks, I've been tempted to reject the Bible as a source of complete truth.

More off topic...but you asked! These are my opinions on this:

I think that any serious theologan today would admit that the Bible scriptures were not simply dictated by God. How ever much they were divinely inspired, the text is also an account of the feelings and the philophies of the writers...coloured by their cultural milieu. Its clear in some parts of the text that the writers are giving their personal opinion...not necessarily strict doctrine...and certainly not 'innerrant'. (Like in some parts of Paul's letters). I also think that many aspects of the ancient theology (like the devil, hell, etc) might have been borrowed from other cultures of the day...they certainly seem similar (but I am no expert on this really).

Keep in mind this is murky water to tread into...there are many who would totally disagree with me (and worse than that). Some people seem to need the security of believing that every word of scripture has a kind of divinity. Personally, I don't believe that Paul would have felt that way when he wrote his letters, for example. The Bible says that all scripture is useful for teaching....and I absolutely believe that. I used to find little or no meaning at all in the old testament. Now I find that there are deep underlying tones and spiritual meaning in them....some of it very profound...but you have to dig it out from the often poetic and metaphorical language that is used. So be careful not to dismiss passages that seem irrelevant, etc. I'm still trying to get my mind around the genealogical accounts (pretty dry stuff, but family lineage seemed quite significant to the writers...something thats difficult for me to connect with)

One thing: always take your own feelings on this with a grain of salt...I find it so easy to get into that old familiar song of 'everyone should see it my way' that echoes through these forums (and in the world of science too I might add).

Good books on post-modern Christian theology: Brian McClaren's "A New Kind Of Christian" (two books in the series...excellent and very intruiging stuff there). I think you'll find many of these ideas explored with more depth in these and other similar books. It really helped me get a meaniful handle on Christian theology....not something you always get at Church....but this was critical for me.

EDIT: looking back at my posts on other threads, I realize that alot of my thinking has been influenced by Brian McClaren's books...I guess I liked them more than I realized.

 

[Michali]

Right, thats how I feel about the scripture subject. But, I feel that there is very firm ground in regard to the gospels. Not individually, but all together. The account of Christ was very important and I feel that many accounts were needed for this one.

When asked about what I believe in my religion, I only know for sure the time period in which God came to earth as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Before this (OT), and after this (rest of- NT) are things which I believe are up for debate.

Because Jesus dealt with demons, spoke to Satan, and talked of Hades, I do believe these things. The "Evil side" in Christianity seems to be necessary when going into the "perfectness of God" subject. If Satan and co. are disregarded, God gets blamed for things he didn't do.

 

[bishnu]

i think a pot and the universe are 2 very different things