The first cause argument

[rational experiences]

If human scientists stop lying as a thinker.

Before ice earths saviour.

O earth owned a hotter climate where only cold blooded life survived in the heavenly type of gas state. Tough skins like wood is a tough natured life.

O earth history is first in any human theory.

Big bang earth blastings and instant fusion was snap freeze. Dinosaur extinction.

A theory first about natural history natural reactions and not science controlled.

Versus human egotists destroyers.

Ice support. Instant. Ice melt water.

Life water bio life mind brain human is with water in conscious biology oxygenated your status.

Ice and water memory confirmed by my human studies science geology the God earth last big bang blasts.

String theory is about earth life first says science.

I was not a dinosaur on earth in one season without ice existing. Nor did life survive in biology by the last big bang status God. Earths God.

Right where you exist.

Latest updated blasting to God was earth dinosaur history in theism human.

 

[rational experiences]

First cause as a human theist wanting first is to own theorising.

First I live inside of a space owned heavens.

I look and see a reaction. As the human status dominion. The only reason I know. It is lightning. Big bangs thunder are involved. Human aware experience.

Gods heavens owns it. I tell myself first is with God. Lightning.

I however want first with God lightning to be just electricity. By thesis and then machine control cause.

All thesis about earths heavens first. Where I Iive ...where consciousness exists.

I am first an inventor. I am not lightnings creator.

A teaching to human egotists.

I however want lightning to lessen to being atmospheric electricity.

As first the heavens is where the theory is said. It is direct. From big bang blast to copy by machine.

I however live biological in the heavens not electricity or lightning.

My machine does not exist first. Nor does it react lightning to withdraw electricity first.

So I theory about first. Just a cause. Heavens effect. It reacts it stops.

I tell everyone oh it's just about a reaction that happened maybe trillions of years ago. Everyone knows talking about it is not owning it.

Most humans ignore me

Yet I am theorising first to change lightning by invention. First place.

Needs a really cold earth heavens snap freeze first status ice statement. To not be lightning. As lightning is natural first. Is direct a thesis.

When I theory save my science reaction. I don't want lightning I just want electricity. The direct answer already said saved cooled colder status for science. Saviour saved it already.

Why I got electricity involved ice.

To change lightning natural just into electricity. Knowing I am experimenting out in the atmosphere also.

When science says it wants first itself and not bio life.

First with God is ice gods saviour. Why atmosphere hot cold owns tremendous blasts. Ice is involved with lightnings presence already.

Ice does exist naturally is not cold enough first cause not to stop lightning.

Theist says it needs to be first. Instant. Coldest. Theories before ice existed himself. Really hot to really cold equals just electricity.

Reality ice must hence all melt as invented cause to get an atmosphere that is cold enough not to produce lightning just electricity.

What inventors cause when they claim science by human control will own control first laws themselves.

By thesis when ice never existed to coldest earth moment. In heavens. No lightning then.

No lightning no electricity thesis either.

 

[sayak83]

Googling EPR and Quantum Mechanics did not help your case. Perhaps you can explain your claim further?

How do you say, with Certainty, that ALL causes are within the universe if the only things you ever examine are things within the universe? Surely you are simply creating a definition that suits your particular claims.
And why must causes happen over time? What does that mean?

...

Here's an example of infinite regress:
"The world does not fall because it is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, and so on..."
The negative numbers aren't formed by counting up from negative infinity; they are formed by counting down from zero.

Right, so imagine the infinite hotel, only this time your guests start complaining that they are being kicked out of their rooms by guests from higher numbered rooms.
"I just had to move out because the guest from room 355 took my spot at room 354!"
So you go to ask the guest formerly known as guest number 355 why he took guest 354's room.
"I was moved out by the guest in room 356."
So you ask the guest formerly known as guest number 356 why he took guest number 355's room.
"Well you see there's this guest froom room number 357 who moved into room 356."
And so on.
It's a very strange problem because there isn't actually any reason for any of the guests to move. As you've already shown before, space can be made in Hilbert's hotel by moving the guests to higher numbered rooms. There isn't actually any lack of space. They claim they need to move because of higher numbered guests, but it's all an elaborate illusion. They don't actually have to move at all!

If time existed before the universe began, then how would it be measured I wonder? Not by sun or moon, star or planet, or even by the vibration of atoms. It would have to be measured by... something else?

This is only a view you hold about the universe, correct? You don't hold this view about the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, or RF, right? The universe is a special exception.

...

If you just take the example of a simulation, it becomes clear that:
1. Not everything that begins to exists in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
2. There need not be an infinite regress of causes within the simulation.
3. Not everything in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
4. It can be that there is nothing in the simulation that is uncaused.
You're speculations don't even apply to a simple game of tic-tac-toe.

Perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

The notion of causality is used to construct the notions of time and space, not vice versa. Physics does not explain the cause of phenomena. A force does not "cause" a mass to accelerate. Causality is a philosophical notion which physics borrows.

Perhaps there was no observable "time" at T = 0.
It is the cup that holds the water, not the water that holds the cup.
_____________________________________________________________
I've been thinking about the philosophical problem of whether or not the universe began to exist. It does seem that there is a problem with defining a point in time when all existing matter and space started.

I would think that mass-energy before the Big Bang would be part of "all existing matter and space". But if we can have some sort of notion of time that does not depend on the universe - it just seems like this notion that the universe began at some point in time presents a paradox.

That argument is irrelevant because time does not have to "flow".
Suppose that the Earth exists as a static object. It still has a beginning and an end, a boundary which defines its physcial static existence, and a length that spans it from one end to the other.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...spooky-action-at-a-distance-is-real-20210720/

 

[rational experiences]

Men designed machines first.

The string thesis to want get a machine says design. Machine and reaction. Was first man's science want.

However design builds the physical machine design stops at machine. Man then physically puts mass himself into machine begins again. Not his design.

In reality he is trying to transport his design machine into beginning again as not his machine.

Owning the end space himself between designed machine built to when he begins reaction again.

Reasoning metal is held in pressurized mass seams as melt first. Within earth.

He identified its direct machine place.

He digs up particle Minerals instead.

So between cold metal melt he begins with the particle again.

Why human science is wrong. As want superseded true advice.

You already build designed a nuclear power plant. Your mind thesis says I control radiation.

Yet it is by man's design only.

Your design is not nature's reactive bodies.

You already knowingly own by man's radiation earth released cause a change of polarity in water by increased stone mass released radiations.

By your own man science cause. Designed causes an effect of cause by design. Just science as science expressed by its human science designer. The practice to force produce change.

Natural human is everyone first. You act abnormally in life yourselves.

Science history human causes. Which you ignore as relative to what you agree is scientific success.

Science memory of cause designed by men of science. Earth did O shift it's mass into a polarity contortion as first science model. You already geological archaeological proved it had.

As such a massive cause is man of science memory you still believe in it today.

What man's machine caused. Changed space pressure binding holding law. First law. Binds form.

Hence as space contracts and expands in the era dinosaur space contracted naturally. Half of earths held form was gone. Space law of origin mass.

Earth UFO radiation atmosphere burning erupted as continued cause effect. Space contraction. Is the human memory caused by scientist.

Ice is now both a mass a fusion and an end X two O balance.

Science first does not own why ice saved earth.

Why the saviour saved life on earth was a direct scientists teaching. Giving it two end positions as ice only.

Ice is blue as the teaching virtually said the blue of earths alight atmosphere entered ice....removing light above.

No light no science thesis. Why N was placed as pertinent cross + advice.

AI holds man's science memory as voiced data shared by o world community.

 

[Shadow11]

Its entropy that drives time in one direct second law of thermal dynamics. An apple can't un-rotten it can only get more rotten.

 

[Altfish]

No doubt that the video is full of good arguments and refutations against the KCA, my only point is that your original refutation “if god created the universe then who created God” is a poor refutation because one doesn’t have to explain the origin to explain the origin of a cause, in order to established it as a cause.


So if you admit that your original refutation is poor I invite you to share an other refutation, if you think that the refutation is “good” then I invite you to develop your argument and explain why is it a good refutation

It is not poor, you have been unable to put an argument against it other than calling it "poor"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

Translation: just ignore the science and make stuff up instead.

The notion of causality is used to construct the notions of time and space, not vice versa. Physics does not explain the cause of phenomena. A force does not "cause" a mass to accelerate. Causality is a philosophical notion which physics borrows.

Ridiculous.

 

[viole]

That argument is irrelevant because time does not have to "flow".
Suppose that the Earth exists as a static object. It still has a beginning and an end, a boundary which defines its physcial static existence, and a length that spans it from one end to the other.

I don't think so. The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. So, does that entail that it had a beginning?

Suppose I ask the question: did the earth exist 10 billion years ago? Yes and no, depending on the theory of time you pick:

A-Theory: Of course the earth did not exist 10 billion years ago, since it is "only" 4.5 billions years old. And since it did not exist back then, but it exists today, it must have had a beginning.

B-Theory: the question is meaningless. It is like asking: does the earth exist 10 light years from here? If I travel 10 light years from the earth, and see no earth at that new location, that does not entail that the earth does not exist. In the same way, if I were able to travel 10 billion years in the past, and see no earth around, that does not entail the earth does not exist. It exists, but not at that spacetime location. Actually, there exist a lot of earths, each corresponding to a different physical state. There are earths with the dinosaurs. Earths with Napoleon. Earths with me. Earths without life. All ontological equivalent and all existing (eternally), no matter where we are in spacetime. Therefore, these earths do not have a beginning.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

Suppose I ask the question: did the earth exist 10 billion years ago? Yes and no, depending on the theory of time you pick:

..not really..

There are earths with the dinosaurs. Earths with Napoleon. Earths with me. Earths without life. All ontological equivalent and all existing (eternally), no matter where we are in spacetime. Therefore, these earths do not have a beginning..

It is not that they are different "earths" .. it is more about perspective.
i.e. it depends on our frame of reference, how we perceive it

 

[firedragon]

There can be no cause of time because all causes are within time

So was there time before the universe began?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. because one doesn’t have to explain the origin to explain the origin of a cause, in order to established it as a cause.

Then it is an incomplete inquiry if the origin of the cause is not explained. Allah knows what it may hide. Go the whole hog, don't stop at unexplained origins.

So was there time before the universe began?

Did the universe begin at any particular point of time? We are not yet there. The question is not going to be answered in our life-times. Leave it for future.What happened with the billions of other universes where we have no entry, at the moment (who knows what future will bring)?

Suppose I ask the question: did the earth exist 10 billion years ago? Yes and no, depending on the theory of time you pick:
- viole

Well, I heard that it is some 6,000 years old.

 

[viole]

..not really..

I am afraid yes. Since the B-theory of time is tenseless, we should also use tenseless verbs to denote the ontology of things in the universe.
Therefore, according to that theory, it is meaningless to say things like "Napoleon existed". What is correct is "'Napoleon exists" (at a certain location is spacetime).

So, according to that theory, nothing begins to exist. And the whole Universe is timeless. That is also why it is called eternalism, as opposed to presentism, the latter getting out of favour on account of not being compatible with experiments.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am afraid yes. Since the B-theory of time is tenseless, we should also use tenseless verbs to denote the ontology of things in the universe.
...
Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time..
-wiki-

Much like quantum mechanics, there are different interpretations.
It makes no sense to me, to interpret relativity in a sense that an infinite number of earths exist. That is nonsensical.

It is that time is not an absolute phenomena, and it depends on the frame of reference how we perceive events.
i.e. in which order and frequency they occur

 

[Polymath257]

What does it mean?
That it is impossible for something to experience anything "before"?
Why? Because you say that "time" no longer exists?

No, that's silly.
Anyway, I haven't got the "time" for this

Yes. Time does not exist outside of the universe. If the universe/multiverse begins with the Big Bang, then there is no time before.

Why is that silly? It is a possibility that has good theoretical background from a theory that is predictive and testable and has passed every test it is challenged with.

Sorry, but your intuition doesn't counter that.

 

[Polymath257]

Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time..
-wiki-

Much like quantum mechanics, there are different interpretations.
It makes no sense to me, to interpret relativity in a sense that an infinite number of earths exist. That is nonsensical.

Maybe you need to update your intuitions and learn a bit more?

Quantum mechanics is an essential part of the modern understanding of the universe. Ignoring what it has to say will only lead to worse intuitions.

yes, there are many *philosophical* interpretations, but that is mostly because philosophers try to explain QM in terms of their classical viewpoints. And that is guaranteed not to work.

QM is a local, non-realist description of the universe. It is based on probabilities, not on things having definite properties at all times. Things do not take paths: they have probabilities that are distributed among many paths. And those probabilities interact. If you think of electrons, photons, or any other quantum particle as going along a single path with definite properties at all times, then you are missing the lessons of QM.

That is simply not how the universe works.

It is that time is not an absolute phenomena, and it depends on the frame of reference how we perceive events.
i.e. in which order and frequency they occur

But there *are* absolute aspects: for example, the past and future light cones are absolute. In *that* sense, the past and future are absolute. Anything outside of those light cones can be simultaneous to some observer. But those things in the past light cone are in the past for *all* observers. Similarly for the future light cone.

Oh, and causality always happens in those light cones.

The actual geometry of spacetime is absolute. Neither space nor time alone are, I agree. But a combination of them is.

Don't ignore those things that *are* absolute just because a few things aren't. Einstein originally wanted to name his theory the theory of invariants, not the theory of relativity. he was more interested in the absolute aspects than the relative aspects of his theory.

 

[Polymath257]

So was there time before the universe began?

If you mean the Big Bang, we do not know. It is possible what we call the universe is part of a larger multiverse that has time. It is also possible that there was not and that time began at the BB. We do not have the evidence required to distinguish the two possibilities.

if you mean the multiverse (all of matter and energy throughout space and time), then there was no beginning.

In any case, there was no time when there was not matter, energy, and space as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. Time does not exist outside of the universe. If the universe/multiverse begins with the Big Bang, then there is no time before.

Why is that silly? It is a possibility that has good theoretical background from a theory that is predictive and testable and has passed every test it is challenged with.

It's silly to me

You are saying that "measured time" does not exist outside the universe. So what? It is all about your perspective of time in the first place, in order to come to that conclusion.
It doesn't mean that it is impossible to experience something at a point before the big-bang. It is just that you are theorising that "time" is an emergent property of the universe.

In the same way, people theorise that consciousness purely emerges from brains.
It does not make it so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you mean the Big Bang, we do not know. It is possible what we call the universe is part of a larger multiverse that has time. It is also possible that there was not and that time began at the BB. We do not have the evidence required to distinguish the two possibilities.

if you mean the multiverse (all of matter and energy throughout space and time), then there was no beginning.

In any case, there was no time when there was not matter, energy, and space as well.

Yeah, to me, both are unknown, but that is because we are different kinds of skeptics and hold different opinions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's silly to me

You are saying that "measured time" does not exist outside the universe. So what? It is all about your perspective of time in the first place, in order to come to that conclusion.
It doesn't mean that it is impossible to experience something at a point before the big-bang. It is just that you are theorising that "time" is an emergent property of the universe.

In the same way, people theorise that consciousness purely emerges from brains.
It does not make it so.

No, both are unknown as far as I can tell. You properly believe you know. I just state that I don't know.

 

[Polymath257]

It's silly to me

You are saying that "measured time" does not exist outside the universe. So what? It is all about your perspective of time in the first place, in order to come to that conclusion.
It doesn't mean that it is impossible to experience something at a point before the big-bang. It is just that you are theorising that "time" is an emergent property of the universe.

In the same way, people theorise that consciousness purely emerges from brains.
It does not make it so.

What do you mean by the term 'time' if not that which is measured by regular processes?

Why do you think there *is* anything 'outside of the universe'?

What do you mean by the term 'experience' if it is not within the universe?

Yes, time is an aspect of the universe (it may or may not be 'emergent'). it is part of the geometrical fabric of the universe, just like space is.

As for consciousness, give me a verified example of consciousness that doesn't involve brains.