The First Cause was not God.

[Runewolf1973]

It changes a bit if your replace 'force' with 'will'.

Perhaps that interaction is a form of 'will'.

 

[chinu]

To get from creator to creation requires an interaction of some type...a force, or an action. Therefore, it is my deduction that what some people call "God" is that creative force. However, it is something natural, not supernatural IMO.

What difference do you think is between Sun and Sun-light ?

 

[Thief]

To get from creator to creation requires an interaction of some type...a force, or an action. Therefore, it is my deduction that what some people call "God" is that creative force. However, it is something natural, not supernatural IMO.

I lean to natural and substance in obedience.
(an element behaving outside natural law would not be 'natural')

Spirit, not having a physical form is not subject.
God can come and go as He pleases.
(supernatural)

 

[Runewolf1973]

What difference do you think is between Sun and Sun-light ?

What difference?

 

[Sonofason]

I agree. It is perhaps one of those "unknowable" things. We are free to speculate though. I speculate it is something natural however.

Everything is natural. If supernatural exists, it too must be natural. If God exists, it must also be natural for God to exist. What do you mean by natural? And what do you mean by supernatural?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Everything is natural. If supernatural exists, it too must be natural. If God exists, it must also be natural for God to exist. What do you mean by natural? And what do you mean by supernatural?

A man-like omnipotent being with magical powers to create the universe and life. That is what I would consider supernatural.

 

[Sonofason]

A man-like omnipotent being with magical powers to create the universe and life. That is what I would consider supernatural.

Something had the power to create a universe. Why not God?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Something had the power to create a universe. Why not God?

The universe is comprised of energy. It was not created by some magical being, it changes form. It also originates and exists by virtue of a force. What is that force? We're not sure. All we can say is that force was not a magical, creational (If that's even a word, lol) power, it was something transformational.

Besides... Matter is 99.9999 percent empty space. What was there for God to create?

 

[chinu]

What difference?

Between Sun and Sunlight. its a question to you.

 

[Sunstone]

What difference do you think is between Sun and Sun-light ?

Sun is the source, and sun-light is what all the sages who think they've seen the source, and who tell others they've seen the source, foolishly believe is the source.

 

[Sunstone]

There's an interesting new theory which holds up mathematically that our three dimensional universe originated in the collapse of a star in another universe, but a four dimensional universe. Thus our universe might not have begun as a singularity, like the Big Bang Theory would hold, but instead originated with a black hole in another universe.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There's an interesting new theory which holds up mathematically that our three dimensional universe originated in the collapse of a star in another universe, but a four dimensional universe. Thus our universe might not have begun as a singularity, like the Big Bang Theory would hold, but instead originated with a black hole in another universe.

I always believed that the universe was cyclic and this would make sense.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Between Sun and Sunlight. its a question to you.

By Sun do you mean "the" Sun as in the actual physical star versus the radiation given off by the Sun which we call sunlight?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Gravity has definite effects.

Gravity is perhaps the unsolved problem of modern physics. For astrophysicists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc., gravitation isn't a singular "force" (or entity) and the "effects" of gravity are the result of spacetime curvature caused by the mass of bodies ("bodies" in the physics sense, not biological).

In other words, it is derived from Einstein's equations and isn't a force but a component of our model of spacetime. However, the core of relativistic physics and gravitation (the general theory of relativity) is currently incompatible with arguably the most successful scientific theory ever: quantum mechanics. Attempts to unify the two are mostly mathematical (not empirical), are replete with paradoxes and other problems, and are multiple (there is no singular solution). Basically, the closest answer we have to this:

What does gravity itself look like?

is "curvature".

What is it's physical form?

Spacetime curvature physical systems create.

I can't personally say what form gravity has

The same is true of light and electromagnetic waves in general.

I feel there must also be a natural cause to that effect as well.

Modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics and extensions thereof, violate causality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Gravity is perhaps the unsolved problem of modern physics. For astrophysicists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc., gravitation isn't a singular "force" (or entity) and the "effects" of gravity are the result of spacetime curvature caused by the mass of bodies ("bodies" in the physics sense, not biological).

In other words, it is derived from Einstein's equations and isn't a force but a component of our model of spacetime. However, the core of relativistic physics and gravitation (the general theory of relativity) is currently incompatible with arguably the most successful scientific theory ever: quantum mechanics. Attempts to unify the two are mostly mathematical (not empirical), are replete with paradoxes and other problems, and are multiple (there is no singular solution). Basically, the closest answer we have to this:



is "curvature".


Spacetime curvature physical systems create.


The same is true of light and electromagnetic waves in general.


Modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics and extensions thereof, violate causality.

Good to have you back Legion! Haven't heard from you for a while.

Admittedly my understanding of physics is greatly lacking. You offer some food for thought. Do you believe it may be possible in the future to unify all the Fundamental Forces into a single "original" force of the universe?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Good to have you back Legion! Haven't heard from you for a while.

Thanks!

Do you believe it may be possible in the future to unify all the Fundamental Forces into a single "original" force of the universe?

Possible? Sure. Likely? No. Hardcore atheists have adopted a theory that is popularly associated with theology: the anthropic principle. This doesn't mean that this theory actually entails any creator or supports any theological arguments, simply that mainstream physicists who happen to be atheists have abandoned the many-century long quest to derive all phenomena and all that exists from a finite set of irreducible laws of physics (or, more simply, have abandoned classical reductionism & determinism as a viable option). The "standard" interpretation of quantum physics is that it is an irreducibly statistical theory, meaning that we cannot even in principle explain the dynamics of any physical systems purely by any set of fundamental forces, let alone a single one. A mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics entails infinitely many parallel universes and no clear "arrow of time" or causation that might render "'original' force" meaningful.

However, about a century ago the whole of modern physics was turned on its head. So who's to say we won't turn it back around and discover what current theory says we can't know?

 

[chinu]

By Sun do you mean "the" Sun as in the actual physical star versus the radiation given off by the Sun which we call sunlight?

Of course, Yes.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Thanks!


Possible? Sure. Likely? No. Hardcore atheists have adopted a theory that is popularly associated with theology: the anthropic principle. This doesn't mean that this theory actually entails any creator or supports any theological arguments, simply that mainstream physicists who happen to be atheists have abandoned the many-century long quest to derive all phenomena and all that exists from a finite set of irreducible laws of physics (or, more simply, have abandoned classical reductionism & determinism as a viable option). The "standard" interpretation of quantum physics is that it is an irreducibly statistical theory, meaning that we cannot even in principle explain the dynamics of any physical systems purely by any set of fundamental forces, let alone a single one. A mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics entails infinitely many parallel universes and no clear "arrow of time" or causation that might render "'original' force" meaningful.

However, about a century ago the whole of modern physics was turned on its head. So who's to say we won't turn it back around and discover what current theory says we can't know?

The way I see it, the ability to interact is fundamental to all of existence and life. The reason the universe or life exists at all was because there was an interaction or series of interactions. We may never know what specifically that initial interaction was, but without it there would no universe as such. Perhaps that interaction started out as a black hole in another universe, but who knows?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There's an interesting new theory which holds up mathematically that our three dimensional universe originated in the collapse of a star in another universe, but a four dimensional universe. Thus our universe might not have begun as a singularity, like the Big Bang Theory would hold, but instead originated with a black hole in another universe.

Here's an interesting thought... Perhaps a Black Hole is something like a giant rice cannon. The immense gravitational force of a Black Hole draws in all the planets and stars and light into the center and compresses it. On the other side of the Black Hole, everything that was compressed gets shot out, expelled and expands into the makings of another universe.

 

[idav]

Perhaps that interaction is a form of 'will'.

To me the difference between mere force vs will is the difference between atheism vs theism.