First Cause

Post Reply New Topic

I thought this topic should have its own thread. It's been bandied about so much.

BUT!! ! I ask that any who contribute, stick to the topic and the arguments.
I personally commit to not attacking or responding to attacks on participants.
Will you do the same?

Here's my take on First Cause

First Cause - The Universe:
Science has only taken us so far. Before Planck time, we have nothing to base any hypothesis on because we were not there and because we don't have the mathematics for it. And even if we did, it's not certain that would even describe the event fully.

So what caused the first cause? Both theists and atheists can propose ideas that have about as much validity, because there is no evidence for any of the ideas. Theists are used to working with theistic minds, as I once was. Scientists are used to working with science guided minds, as I am trying to get better at. What is hard to get away from is the subjectivity that comes from both. So let's look at subjectivity.

Subjectivity - Theistic:
In my experience, theistic subjectivity is heavily influenced by notions of dogma. It is written, and so we believe. Even when it was written before other explanations have since proven such beliefs wrong (flat earth, disease being possession, natural disasters being supernatural etc etc). Literalism; the belief in a literal creation and literal interpretation of Biblical stories. In my study of theology, I came to understand that many of the stories were not written with a literal interpretation in mind. Yet our modern empirical minds cannot grasp this. We need to believe in historical accuracy or it undermines out faith. That's not why ancient writers wrote. Spiritual truth was more important to the ancient myth writers. Yet out modern subjectivity finds this implacable.

Subjectivity - Science:
Science has evolved in the way it is performed and the methods it uses for verification. Science does not like subjectivity and attempts to resolve this through falsification, peer review and other means. This doesn't mean false and dogmatic things don't get through. They definitely do. But the false ones are eventually proven false. As best as I understand it, science is designed to be falsified - without that, it cannot claim the banner of science. Falsification and review are like a badge of honour to most scientists. Once you have passed that, you have the best possible proof that your theory is right. Nothing else can prove many things in the world of science. And those proofs go on to becoming products, like GPS (which relies of the correlation of time and mass), and memory the size of a pinhead being able to store encyclopedias of information. So many things science has proven that is not observable and not able to be proven by any method except scientific method. Without science, we cannot observe the functioning of disease, or the splitting of cells, or the movement of electromechanical energy or the redshift of galaxies.

Science does have its subjectivity, especially when corporate needs are paying its way. But even then, a lot of it gets debunked. Take the scientists who were hired to prove that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Eventually they were debunked. I imagine there will be other cases people could cite where corporate science still wins... for the moment. Another area of subjectivity is in who falsifies and who reviews. Global Warming is a hot contender there (pun intended). Many suggest that the world of science is in revolt over claims and counter claims. So what is the layman to do? Based on published evidence, I've gone back and forth on this a couple of times over the last 2 decades. But weighing up the evidences presented, the debunking and the credentials of the presenters, I have to be subjective in my opinion, because I am not a scientist.

Which leads to the great masses of us who are not scientists. All of us, who do not study the particular field of science in question, have to come to a subjective viewpoint. There is no other possible conclusion for us to have. So what do we rely on to inform that subjective POV? We have to rely on the philosophy of one side or the other, because ultimately that philosophy will be the best guide to real answers. Does the philosophy allow for being wrong? That is my first question.

First Cause - Biology:
Again, there are two sides to this. Science have had theories, and tested them several times. It has proven the theories are a good possible explanation. It hasn't proven them true or the only explanation.

Theology comes down on the side of creation. It says that life was created, because that is what all religious texts present. It also says that creation is the only explanation because science is absent of any real proof for another explanation.

Me personally, with all that science has proven over the last few hundred years, debunking thousands of supernatural explanations, I think science has the lead.

First Cause - Wrap-up:
Do I think science has the only explanation for first cause? I lean that way. Do I believe there is no deity? I don't quite go that far. I believe a deity or deities or force or FSM or whatever is possible, but I don't believe any such being could fit inside our brain or play the role religion gives it, without a heck of a lot of anthropomorphisms going on. Hence I am functionally atheist.

I can't help it.....I can never believe that there was ever "nothingness."

In my heart of hearts, I believe the universe is infinite, and has lasted an infinite amount of time.

I agree.. which is why I like brane theory. Subjective but so be it.

If you ever do the science experiment of joining two balloons together and releasing one into the other, you'll see the smaller one contract, expelling its air into the larger. It goes against the expected. You would expect the larger, being under more pressure, to expel into the smaller, until some equilibrium is reached. For some reason, when I think about brane theory, I think about those two balloons, one representing our universe, the other representing what's on the other side of the big bang event horizon. And as you say, infinite.

Invalid question. A first cause would be causeless, and a first cause is a product of finitism, which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. We will never know the answers to certain questions.

What would that "entity" which is on the other side of our "universe" be called?

I would purport that there is an infinite universe, comprised of "subuniverses" which have the appearance of "full-fledged" universes.

I really wish we could really explore space....and obtain actual, empirical data about places like the Crab Nebula. As it stands now, much about the universe outside of our immediate solar system is pretty much conjecture.

Reminds me of this experiment.

Which is why we gravitate to what makes the most sense to us. I wish I had the cosmological studies behind me to give me more understanding. At best, all I can hope for is the most elegant fit.


That is so fascinating to watch. It's also tempting to see it as analogous to something far bigger... lol.

More here.

Maybe it is. Who knows?

NONE OF it is real now, so I stick with NOW, as FIRST AND LAST CAUSE AS IS.

AND OH GOD, IS life easy that way, per the GOD that's NOW.

ALL truly GREAT enlightened and awakened philosophers focus on now.

Only abstract language, collective intelligence and complex cultural abstract concepts take one away from the GOD that's NOW.

God IS the first and last cause NOW AS IS wonNOW

And that's just common sense and emotions, even withOUT without abstract language, collective intelligence, and complex cultural ways..of living life.

For he sake of argument let's propose there is a need for an uncaused first cause. This requirement does not need the existence of a sentient being. We know that energy can form matter and vice versa. All that is needed is energy and with that matter and anti matter can spontaneously come into being. So, I here the theists cry, where did the energy come from? Simple really the same place as your God.

A first cause in whatever form you want to imagine it would presumably consist at least in part of energy, once you have this you can get matter, once you have matter you can get anti matter bring them together and you get one massive release of energy and BANG! no need for sentience, direction or purpose.

BTW kudos on he opening post Narrator

Yes, that's the other thing I forgot to include in first cause. While I don't hold to one or another theory, I can see how the something can come out of "virtually" nothing, when QM is part of the equation. That virtually nothing is not absolute nothing. I don't know the specifics, but I've heard it explained far better than I'm managing.

Why?

"God," to me, is the symbolic representation of the thing which created "something" from previous "nothingness."

Is it a sentient being, or just some kind of "force"? I'm on the side which thinks it's some kind of "force."

I have my doubts, though, about the existence of "nothingness."

Seriously, it's best to worship GOD AS NOW.

Any questions?..

Oh and by the way.. typo up there with two withouts.. sorry about that.. i'm sure it made it even MORE CONFUSing..

BUT THE bottom line IS, I use common sense to rule my life; not religion or science.

AND that IS AN INSTINCTUAL AND INNATE human potential.

And sorry to keep beating a LIVE horse BUT IT IS THE innate and instinctual REASON I press 930LBS with my legs at age 54 and the crowd thinks I'm on roller skates when I dance, literally speaking, as I just receive that remark and applause last night from a basketball crowd at my military gym.

I'm already in Ripley's believe it or not IN LIVING COLOR REALITY, PER REASON OF innate instinct and NOT RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

And seriously what I'm saying here is to focus too much on book learning and to forget what innate instinctual human nature can be when practiced is to miss the circus of life, enjoyed as such.

But of course the CIRCUS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE, friend.

I understand that.

But maybe there are other potential circus performers in the reading audience that can use some inspiration to be 'SUPERMEN OR WOMEN' too...

But anyway, the so-called higher power of GOD is in instinct and intuition from within; NOT RELIGION OR SCIENCE.

THAT'S ALREADY A PROVEN FACT, PER REFERENCE OF scientists who study the FEATS OF TIBETAN MOUNTAIN MONKS.

I 'JUST DO IT'...

IN Public.. that's the only difference...

IN other words 'I came down from the Mountain'...

And I am moving them too.. in Metaphor.. of course..

Last edited by aghogday on 12 Feb 2015, 9:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

Could the ever-present nothingness of God be lurking in the aether?

Sure; I for one, am certainly not too all knowing, to discount that.

Sure, nothing is GOD too.

Ynot.