First cause?

[1137]

I don't know about a "first cause," but a fundamentally necessary order which is a prerequisite for all existence? Absolutely. I think the more appropriate question is how is a powerful, fundamental, reality shaping force NOT worthy of being called a god?

 

[columbus]

I think the more appropriate question is how is a powerful, fundamental, reality shaping force NOT worthy of being called a god?

I answer that question with "Yes".
That doesn't make me a theist or Believer or anything. Just a deist, which isn't either of those things. It is much much closer to agnostic atheism.
Because calling the Original Source or Ground of Beingness or whatever "God" doesn't tell you anything important. It doesn't mean you believe in anything resembling the God of Abraham or any of the assorted fictional characters humans have invented through the centuries.
Tom

 

[YmirGF]

No, they don't. You added the "nothing" part.

Thank you for correcting that misleading post.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know about a "first cause," but a fundamentally necessary order which is a prerequisite for all existence? Absolutely. I think the more appropriate question is how is a powerful, fundamental, reality shaping force NOT worthy of being called a god?

I've no idea what is necessary for existence. However, I would suggest that order is necessary for intelligence, not the other way around. So the reason to not call whatever the "fundamentally necessary order" arises from, "god" is that most species of god seem to be conscious, intelligent beings.

 

[ratiocinator]

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, and many others who consider themselves 'atheist' consider it feasible that we could one day create our own universe, and that this may be where ours came from.
(the creative product of alien-universe)

That's just one form of ID, but provides a hypothetical power of explanation superior to the odds of blind chance doing the same

But then your straight back into an infinite regression. Just like a god, might be the case, but it doesn't actually explain anything fundamental.

 

[David T]

Cosmologists agree that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

View attachment 16539[/QUOi I didn't know that quantum fluctuation was literally a separated state from energy!!! That's really new. So we have what a quantum fluxuating into a something? Seems rather bizaaro and I don't think that is quite right for some magical reason.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But then your straight back into an infinite regression. Just like a god, might be the case, but it doesn't actually explain anything fundamental.

Again that is only an apparent paradox from restraining cause and effect into a linear timeline- which again applies to any proposed explanation-

and we already know that there IS a solution to that, right? or we wouldn't be here. Given that, the other distinct problem is how to originate the information itself,


As the analogy- the waves can account for the rocks physically washing up on the beach, but they are not the best explanation for the information contained

i.e.how something physically came into being, and how the information necessary to describe it was generated - two very distinct questions-

 

[David T]

An action not having a time constraint of before and after, doesn't need cause and effect.

Good question, I have no idea. I suspect something like that can't be perceived in a space tied to time.

Yes I think so, or you could just call it "most first thing that caused everything".

This is totally related to perceptions of time. How time is perceived will dictate the interpretation. Time as we define it is really very linear and extremely influenced by culture. So from a linear based perception first cause questions seem reasonable. There is a major issue though, in order to literally have linear time you must have finite scale. So in context to linear time you have to ask what is the scale of that you are talking about. Zero evidence has ever been found to scale the cosmos smaller than unbounded. If you start to tread down the scale path of any finite definition you will get a big fat "congratulations southern Baptist you are a clueless moron" from me. Every religious fanatic has the cosmos conviently scaled less than unbounded. It can be dressed up in secular clothing it's still a duck that quacks.

 

[1137]

I've no idea what is necessary for existence. However, I would suggest that order is necessary for intelligence, not the other way around. So the reason to not call whatever the "fundamentally necessary order" arises from, "god" is that most species of god seem to be conscious, intelligent beings.

You bring up a very interesting debate I've often pondered: what makes a god a god? Is consciousness a requirement? In Setian metaphysics the answer to this question could have repercussions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, all we can really see is transformations. We think of things transforming, but in reality there are no things, just empty transformation.

There are no things? Physical things?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We know such information systems can be originated through creative intelligence, but whether or not purely spontaneous/ naturalistic mechanisms can achieve the same is a trickier question

Not really. If you constrain random event to a simple set of rules, and allow the random mechanism to run?

New information (patterns) will emerge, if the rules select for that.

Evolution, for example, is exactly that: genetics run on random shuffling of the DNA each generation, with some constraint (it's not a pure random shuffling).

Then, the rules of the environment select for individuals which do better, and allow other individuals to die. If these others die before they reproduce, their random-genetic pick is discarded, like a bad had of poker. Meanwhile, the more successful "hand" goes on to reproduce, passing on the "good hand" (mostly) to the offspring.

If you let the game run long enough? New information emerges from the random chaos.

We can also see similar emergence of new information in the very early stages of the universe-- the principle rule here, being gravity. But not smooth, perfect gravity-- rather lumpy, imperfect, anything but smooth.

This is kinda important: had it been smooth? Symmetry says there would be as much anti-matter as matter, during the early phase where energy is condensing into hydrogen atoms. If there had been? All would have annihilated itself... no universe. But... it was not symmetrical.

And out of all that chaos? Stars happened, due to gravity, and due to the asymmetrical early universe.

And stars represent new information...

 

[Fool]

Does there need to be a first cause?

if there is one there has to be polarity, or contrast, parts, aspects, facets for recognition to be made; otherwise its all the same.

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

only the ABSOLUTE would be capable of that. it's parts, aspects, facets, could only theorize from self evidence

And must the first cause be God?

a word, even a limited idea, used by an aspect of that ABSOLUTE doesn't do anything but self-assuage the perceiver/observer in believing what it has defined. it would be like trying to define the universe in a book, or in a series of books. the Universe is much bigger than a terrestrial, or earth itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not really. If you constrain random event to a simple set of rules, and allow the random mechanism to run?

New information (patterns) will emerge, if the rules select for that.

Evolution, for example, is exactly that: genetics run on random shuffling of the DNA each generation, with some constraint (it's not a pure random shuffling).

Then, the rules of the environment select for individuals which do better, and allow other individuals to die. If these others die before they reproduce, their random-genetic pick is discarded, like a bad had of poker. Meanwhile, the more successful "hand" goes on to reproduce, passing on the "good hand" (mostly) to the offspring.

If you let the game run long enough? New information emerges from the random chaos.

We can also see similar emergence of new information in the very early stages of the universe-- the principle rule here, being gravity. But not smooth, perfect gravity-- rather lumpy, imperfect, anything but smooth.

This is kinda important: had it been smooth? Symmetry says there would be as much anti-matter as matter, during the early phase where energy is condensing into hydrogen atoms. If there had been? All would have annihilated itself... no universe. But... it was not symmetrical.

And out of all that chaos? Stars happened, due to gravity, and due to the asymmetrical early universe.

And stars represent new information...

That was certainly the model during the Victorian age when Darwinism was conceived.

That given a handful of simple 'immutable' rules, and lots of time and space for them to randomly bump around in, jolly interesting things are bound to happen eventually.

That was before quantum mechanics, universal constants, the primeval atom, when underlying guiding information, math, algorithms, crucial for predetermining exactly how space/time matter/energy would develop, how great fusion reactors in stars would produce specific complex elements necessary for life... were all still the realm of 'religious pseudoscience'

 

[sealchan]

I don't see God as First Cause as very compelling any more for many of the reasons cited in this thread. Science and mathematics is coming up with ways of understanding how things may spontaneously emerge or that time doesn't have to have a boundary...still where does that quantum fluctuation come from?

A recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate covers this topic well:

For me God is better seen as a personification of the creator of the Universe rather than a logical cause of the Universe although I suppose for the former one has to assume the latter. To have a person with which one can psychologically and emotionally relate or communicate with that is responsible for the Universe and its current state...that is the value of seeing a God as creator. In this way you can deal with the emotional and psychological aspects of one's experience of reality through an act of interpersonal relationship.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That was certainly the model during the Victorian age when Darwinism was conceived.

The fact you use the nonsensical term "darwinism" leads me to discount anything else you may have to say... but let's roll forward in spite of that faux pas...

That given a handful of simple 'immutable' rules, and lots of time and space for them to randomly bump around in, jolly interesting things are bound to happen eventually.

Demonstrated already, time and time again. I guess you skipped that class...

That was before quantum mechanics, universal constants, the primeval atom, when underlying guiding information, math, algorithms, crucial for predetermining exactly how space/time matter/energy would develop, how great fusion reactors in stars would produce specific complex elements necessary for life... were all still the realm of 'religious pseudoscience'

??? If you had a point? You failed to make it...

So I should have stopped reading at the nonsense word "darwinsim"...

 

[Kaay]

I don't know about a "first cause," but a fundamentally necessary order which is a prerequisite for all existence? Absolutely. I think the more appropriate question is how is a powerful, fundamental, reality shaping force NOT worthy of being called a god?

Each faith has its own virtues and values. And each one to his/her own faith. That One God is real, His embodiment can be many. True, the consciousness of God came upon Jesus, and he then went about teaching man about God. Jesus mostly followed a life as written in the prophesies. Even his crucification, was pre-destined and ordained by God, so that the cross became a symbol in time to come. However it is not true that one could get the kingdom of God only through Jesus. Jesus at that time proclaimed as such, but only with respect to those times when the order of the Romans was wealth, wine and women. He at that time was truly the man of God. And so he told them to seek God through his teachings. While the Hindus had spiritual and religious scriptures written by many God realized saints more than 5000 years ago, the western world had no way of knowing about God, and His commandments. That’s why God sent Jesus to the west, to teach people about God, and the Bible was written later.

Not many people know that Jesus traveled to India at the age of 14, and was there with many God realized saints until the age of 29 when he went back. They have documentary evidence that Jesus had gone to Kashmir. There are scriptures written about him. In fact the slippers and the robes that he wore are still preserved there. He was called Isa Masiha. He was the son of God and preached about God. But when he was crucified, for a few moments he lost God consciousness and cried out "Eli, Eli, why has’t thou forsaken me?" But when he rose from 'death' he told his disciples "Fear not, I am not a ghost, I am in flesh and blood" which was true. He had died a clinical death and through his spiritual practices, he came back to consciousness. He then left for India again. He spent many years there. He left his body in a Samadhi in Kashmir, in India. The grave of Rosabel, is actually the grave of Jesus. This is not a story; it is all recorded in evidence.
Coming back to God, well, it is really your own consciousness that can take you to God. Not Jesus, Allah or Buddha. That too, if your spiritual Karma permits. Therefore if you really and truly look at your own thoughts, feelings, attachments, heart behavior, you will realize how far away you are from pure consciousness. Therefore neither an English God, nor a Muslim or a Hindu God can help you. Only your Karmas, and purity of the heart and mind can help you. No doubt, a good Christian will guide you to Jesus, a good Muslim will guide you to Allah and so a Hindu. But even if the school is good, if the student is not up to it, then you cant say that the school does not have a good standard. God is only about pure consciousness, being, awareness and bliss. God is not an adjective. God is not a subject or an object. He JUST IS. He does not have any agents to recruit people to heaven. He is just pure consciousness which can transcend upon anyone who is worthy to fulfill His mission. He can come any human form, in a life. He can come in some form for a few moments, and can also come in many different forms at the same time at different places. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent.
God bless- [email protected]

 

[littlefire]

I don't know a whole lot about physics, but with all the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff this universe has going on, I'd think that ideas of "cause," "coming into being," or even "existence" to a certain extent might not even be applicable.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

There was no first cause to Cosmic existence, nor is it logical to imagine there is, only consciousness based on dualism imagines there could be. The actual reality represented by the concept of God is another matter, for pantheists it is the non-dual unborn eternal Cosmic existence!

 

[Willamena]

Does there need to be a first cause?

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

And must the first cause be God?

I believe we invented the term "god" just avoid a "first cause."

On the other hand, there is a visible gap when trying to explain truth.

 

[David T]

But then your straight back into an infinite regression. Just like a god, might be the case, but it doesn't actually explain anything fundamental.

I think Tha infinite regression is a phenomena of reductionism. If you look at my avatar it's infinite regression and it appears to be an aspect of normalacy!!! Its common here and easily seen in religion what's more difficult and interesting is that someone can be a staunch atheist and believe that we live in a virtual reality which is identical to religions general intellectual statements. Its like a perpetual motion machine fueling itself and way more pervasive than most realize. I also think that it underlays some emotional disorders. Like the person forgets to breathe.