First cause?

[Guy Threepwood]

It's difficult to comment on "multiverses" because the term is used to refer to a whole range of conjectures that range from fairly straightforward interpretations of what is already established theory, though to guesswork that is little better than science fiction.


But that leaves you with a 'someone' who is totally unexplained. So what have you actually explained? All the difficult questions didn't get answered, they got moved...

There are 2 separate difficult questions, how did something physically come from nothing- which is a wash and a moot point because we are here- the score is 0-0: where did God come from? where did the Multiverse come from?

The other question is how all the precise information, engineering needed for us to be having this conversation came to be arranged as such. Including the literal digital code running the software of life. This is not a wash;
because we already know for sure than creative intelligence can design and create such novel and complex information systems, and seed them in a self extracting archive of compressed information, just like the primeval atom

Whether or not this can happen entirely accidentally, it's a far more difficult logical question when we forbid the involvement of ID at any stage.


It's difficult to comment on multiverses because they are inherently philosophical speculation, entirely beyond the scope of scientific investigation by their nature.

They are based explicitly on the rationale, that the only remaining way to create a universe like ours without ID, would be an infinite probability generator, that can and will create anything and everything, including this universe eventually.

 

[ratiocinator]

The other question is how all the precise information, engineering needed for us to be having this conversation came to be arranged as such. Including the literal digital code running the software of life. This is not a wash;
because we already know for sure than creative intelligence can design and create such novel and complex information systems, and seed them in a self extracting archive of compressed information, just like the primeval atom

Whether or not this can happen entirely accidentally, it's a far more difficult logical question when we forbid the involvement of ID at any stage.

And we already know that it was the universe that gave rise to all the creative intelligence that we have any evidence for.

You still haven't addressed the point that you are just bundling up the difficult problem and moving it elsewhere so that it can't be addressed - and doing so with no apparent justification.

Yes, the universe we find ourselves in is hard to explain but the universe we find ourselves in plus some unspecified intelligent designer is no less hard to explain - and there is zero evidence for said designer's existence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And we already know that it was the universe that gave rise to all the creative intelligence that we have any evidence for.

You still haven't addressed the point that you are just bundling up the difficult problem and moving it elsewhere so that it can't be addressed - and doing so with no apparent justification.

Yes, the universe we find ourselves in is hard to explain but the universe we find ourselves in plus some unspecified intelligent designer is no less hard to explain - and there is zero evidence for said designer's existence.

There is zero direct empirical evidence for any explanation is there? But we have other forms

logical deduction
predictive ability
probability

If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a row, and there is zero direct evidence that he cheated, do you assume it was luck?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is zero direct empirical evidence for any explanation is there?

Indeed, which might suggest that guessing about it is futile...

But we have other forms

logical deduction
predictive ability
probability

In this context:
What are your deductions and how are they made?
What are you suggesting we can predict and how do you suggest going about it?
Since, as you say, we have no actual evidence, how are you going to assess probabilities?

How are you going to compare the probability of a universe like ours with the probability of an intelligent designer who just happens to want to create a universe like ours?

If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a row, and there is zero direct evidence that he cheated, do you assume it was luck?

Not sure what this is supposed to be an analogy of? If something happened with a chance of 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 - would you be surprised?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed, which might suggest that guessing about it is futile...

well yes, we probably have better things to do!

In this context:
What are your deductions and how are they made?

God did it, by inference to the best explanation!

What are you suggesting we can predict and how do you suggest going about it?

For one, the concept of a creator predicts that the universe was actually created in a specific event, as opposed to being static/eternal/steady- something atheist cosmologists used to mock and reject as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang'

Since, as you say, we have no actual evidence, how are you going to assess probabilities?

I'd defer to Hawking's assessment of probability here, you'd need an infinite probability generator to do it by chance

How are you going to compare the probability of a universe like ours with the probability of an intelligent designer who just happens to want to create a universe like ours?

A loaded dice will throw a six more readily than an unloaded one
the intelligent designer does not need infinite random tries,

Not sure what this is supposed to be an analogy of? If something happened with a chance of 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 - would you be surprised?

the probability of chance v ID, we know it's not luck

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In our view the creation is a continuous process.. as light is emanated by the sun so does creation emanate from God.. there is no beginning or ending as God is a creating God.

So since you saw the Sun, you now think you know how all of existence works?

 

[ratiocinator]

God did it, by inference to the best explanation!

You need to show your working.

For one, the concept of a creator predicts that the universe was actually created in a specific event, as opposed to being static/eternal/steady- something atheist cosmologists used to mock and reject as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang'

Why would we assume a creator would do it in one specific event?

I'd defer to Hawking's assessment of probability here, you'd need an infinite probability generator to do it by chance

Citation?

A loaded dice will throw a six more readily than an unloaded one
the intelligent designer does not need infinite random tries,

Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. What is the probability of your designer just happening to exist? How many throws of the dice did it take to produce the designer?

the probability of chance v ID, we know it's not luck

And the existence of your designer is what, if not luck? Did it create itself?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You need to show your working.


Why would we assume a creator would do it in one specific event?


Citation?


Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. What is the probability of your designer just happening to exist? How many throws of the dice did it take to produce the designer?


And the existence of your designer is what, if not luck? Did it create itself?

There's where the multiverse shoots itself in the foot, an infinite probability machine that can create anything by infinite rolls of the dice... except anything that could ever be described as God- which would defeat the entire purpose.

Yet apparently it already created sentient creative beings who have gone a long way towards reverse engineering their own universe, what happens when you fully reverse engineer something?

 

[ratiocinator]

There's where the multiverse shoots itself in the foot, an infinite probability machine that can create anything by infinite rolls of the dice... except anything that could ever be described as God- which would defeat the entire purpose.

You appear to have gone off at a tangent and started arguing about something I didn't propose.

Yet apparently it already created sentient creative beings who have gone a long way towards reverse engineering their own universe, what happens when you fully reverse engineer something?

Or are you trying to use the multiverse idea to explain the existence of a designer?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

It's fun and interesting to speculate, but any honest human being must ultimately admit that we can do nothing more than speculate. We don't know. There are likely an endless amount of things we don't know and probably aren't capable of knowing. The human ego, in it's ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism, seems to have a hard time admitting this simple fact. A man-centered, god-created universe is the ultimate expression of this sad little delusion.

 

[sealchan]

My formula for all of this is...

• Where there is mystery there is ample opportunity for engaging story that can creatively reflect on the value of our individual and collective human life
• Where there is evidence, science is the best arbiter for determining what is likely true as it does the most work at collectively recording, discerning and collating the data available
• The line between knowledge and mystery is always in motion, this keeps our story-tellers always in need

First cause made an interesting argument for God's existence but the diversity of religious and scientific knowledge has grown and it no longer is a compelling proof. There are simply too many possibilities about the mystery of our ultimate origin for anyone to claim relative knowledge over anyone else. But a good epic story based on one's well-crafted and inspired ideas is always appreciated.

Before I listen to any arguments about intelligent design, I require a person to outline a methodology for generally recognizing if something was created by an intelligence versus created naturally. Until then intelligent design is just hand-waving for one's own favorite wonder tale.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Before I listen to any arguments about intelligent design, I require a person to outline a methodology for generally recognizing if something was created by an intelligence versus created naturally. Until then intelligent design is just hand-waving for one's own favorite wonder tale.

I normally don't take sides in the intelligent design argument, but why do you believe there is an absence of intelligence involved in nature's creative activity?

 

[sealchan]

I normally don't take sides in the intelligent design argument, but why do you believe there is an absence of intelligence involved in nature's creative activity?

I don't believe that necessarily...in fact in my own formulation I make a best effort to distinguish between the two and find that distinction is likely to overlap.

But there is a lot of debate between ID and those who believe that "nature" can create all that we see. I tend to favor the latter myself, but I find that the debate often takes place based on individual intuitions poorly defined as to what the difference is.

In the case of first cause I feel that God is often invoked because of a belief that only an advanced intelligence could have created our improbably well-tuned Universe as it stands. But this begs the question that natural, "unintelligent" systems could not also do it.

But really it is as I think you are suggesting presumptuous to think of nature as inherently "stupid". She is deeply intelligent I think...sufficiently so to explain much of what we find. Additionally, in my own Christian belief I am coming into an awareness that God's feminine nature and all the traditional attributes thereof may have been consciously suppressed as far back as the Jewish Testament and that re-expressing the divine feminine aspect of God is tantamount to revealing the inherent intelligence of nature and its ability to creatively design out of its own systemic "body".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't believe that necessarily...in fact in my own formulation I make a best effort to distinguish between the two and find that distinction is likely to overlap.

But there is a lot of debate between ID and those who believe that "nature" can create all that we see. I tend to favor the latter myself, but I find that the debate often takes place based on individual intuitions poorly defined as to what the difference is.

In the case of first cause I feel that God is often invoked because of a belief that only an advanced intelligence could have created our improbably well-tuned Universe as it stands. But this begs the question that natural, "unintelligent" systems could not also do it.

But really it is as I think you are suggesting presumptuous to think of nature as inherently "stupid". She is deeply intelligent I think...sufficiently so to explain much of what we find. Additionally, in my own Christian belief I am coming into an awareness that God's feminine nature and all the traditional attributes thereof may have been consciously suppressed as far back as the Jewish Testament and that re-expressing the divine feminine aspect of God is tantamount to revealing the inherent intelligence of nature and its ability to creatively design out of its own systemic "body".

But there is no real separation between the reality represented by the term 'God' and the term 'Nature', except in a mind that differentiates the unity into "the one into two, then the three, and then the ten thousand things" *.

There can be no absolute first cause because there was never a beginning to the cycles of creation, concepts like creation, preservation, and destruction, are only relevant to the manifested forms of the universe as observed by a conceptualizing mind, but in essence they are only apparent aspects of the one eternal existence.

*Tao Teh Ching

 

[Ekleipsis]

If by first cause you mean the " prime mover ", I have always that interesting in the face of FLRW cosmology

All energy was squashed into a small volume of incredible density, which is the leading theory these days, iirc, of the initial state of the universe

The only way anything would move is outward ( expansion ) at least as far as I understand Susskind's lectures

.. yet the esoteric interpretation of the beginning of the universe according to rabbis ( some ) is that God had to contract to create room to make the universe, as God was all that existed at that point ( literally, a point )

But bringing a lone solitary God into it again just begs one to note that without anybody or anything else around....

.....how do you know you exist ?

If I were a lone solitary point of energy, I might decide to try and create something that will ultimately prove I am real

Because that would bug me, not knowing

 

[columbus]

I'd defer to Hawking's assessment of probability here, you'd need an infinite probability generator to do it by chance

It's fun and interesting to speculate, but any honest human being must ultimately admit that we can do nothing more than speculate. We don't know. There are likely an endless amount of things we don't know and probably aren't capable of knowing. The human ego, in it's ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism, seems to have a hard time admitting this simple fact. A man-centered, god-created universe is the ultimate expression of this sad little delusion.

One thing I often notice is that religious people often assume that everyone shares their deference to prophets. Like here where Guy quotes Hawkings as though it mattered to you or me. The fact that Hawkings is a famous atheist doesn't mean other atheists accept his opinions.
I still think the only honest answer here is "Nobody knows". People can get all in a bunch over their pet theory, but nobody has ever given me reason to think they know.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One thing I often notice is that religious people often assume that everyone shares their deference to prophets. Like here where Guy quotes Hawkings as though it mattered to you or me. The fact that Hawkings is a famous atheist doesn't mean other atheists accept his opinions.
I still think the only honest answer here is "Nobody knows". People can get all in a bunch over their pet theory, but nobody has ever given me reason to think they know.
Tom

I agree Tom, the wise man knows himself a fool, we must always acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such.

"Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself"

 

[arthra]

So since you saw the Sun, you now think you know how all of existence works?

Thanks for your post Jeremiah.. I'm glad you've also seen the light... The "sun" is used as an analogy to explain that the creation is an emanation from God..as light emanates from the sun:


"Creation is an emanation from the creator. It is impossible that the eternal should become limited. A tree never becomes a creature: it never acquires sight nor smell; yet both are creations of God - creations in emanation. Creation is like the sunlight; God is the sun."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 107

Another expression of the topic can be found in the words below:

The One is not all things, but before all things. Emanation is the process by which all things are derived from the One. The infinite goodness and perfection "overflows", and, while remaining within itself and losing nothing of its own perfection, it generates other beings, sending them forth from its own superabundance. Or again, as brightness is produced by the rays of the sun so everything is a radiation (perilampsis) from the Infinite Light...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Emanationism

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thanks for your post Jeremiah.. I'm glad you've also seen the light... The "sun" is used as an analogy to explain that the creation is an emanation from God..as light emanates from the sun:


"Creation is an emanation from the creator. It is impossible that the eternal should become limited. A tree never becomes a creature: it never acquires sight nor smell; yet both are creations of God - creations in emanation. Creation is like the sunlight; God is the sun."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 107

Another expression of the topic can be found in the words below:

The One is not all things, but before all things. Emanation is the process by which all things are derived from the One. The infinite goodness and perfection "overflows", and, while remaining within itself and losing nothing of its own perfection, it generates other beings, sending them forth from its own superabundance. Or again, as brightness is produced by the rays of the sun so everything is a radiation (perilampsis) from the Infinite Light...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Emanationism

True, each form of life serve as steps on a ladder, or grades of a school, the evolution allows spiritual involution and ascension such as reflected in this Rumi's piece...

I died as a mineral and became a plant;
I died as a plant and rose to animal;
I died as an animal and I was a man.
Why should I fear?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as man to soar...
With angels blest.
But even from an angel I must pass on:
All except God must perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel soul,
I shall become what no mind ever conceived.

Wrt 'God is before all things', I would not interpret this as referring to time, but to the fact of God's underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity of God's manifestation. Suns are forms that experience birth, life, then death like all forms, only the absolute God and the eternal cycles of births, lives, and deaths had no beginning.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does there need to be a first cause?

Only in the sense that some people seem to need it.

From a purely logical perspective, no, of course not. The very idea of a first cause is a result of human expectations and nothing more.

How would you verify something is really the first cause?

I wouldn't. That is by definition impossible. It is also not very logical, being as it is a confirmation of a fictional concept.

And must the first cause be God?

Again, only in the sense that some people have a strong emotional craving for that claim.

When the tire meets the tarmac, appeals to "god as an explanation" are just wind. God is inherently useless as an explanation for anything.

That is a significant part of the appeal of the concept, even.

For the people most attached to the idea of an Abrahamic-styled God, their motivation is often its ability to sort-of occupy the space where an explanation would be wanted. By lacking a clear meaning, nature or purpose, the God-idea is almost paradoxically very suitable for appearing to have all three of those attributes.

In essence, it is mental prestidigitation meant to appease irrational, unnecessary, often purposefully nurtured anxieties.

Not a very religious habit when you think about it, but I guess many people are confused about the nature and purpose of religion.