The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the detailed response,

I have no problem with science here, it did what it was supposed to do, eventually, when Lemaitre was on his death bed, never receiving a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time..

I could easily challenge that LeMaitre's observation (essentially a solution of Einstein's equations) were NOT the 'greatest scientific discovery of all time'. First of all, the Einstein equations he worked with would certainly have higher precedence. Also, LeMaitre was one of *three* people who found essentially that found the same solution. Finally, it had to be elaborated by Alpher, Bethe, and Gamov to get to the place it had deeper content (prediction of elemental abundances and background radiation).

Now, we can have a deeper discussion of the biases of the Nobel committee over time, but failing to give LeMaitre a prize was not out of bounds. Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize for his most fundamental theoreticall work (special and general relativity), but for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. The point is that at the time of LeMaitre's death, the evidence *for* the Big Bang was still rather soft. The background radiation had first been observed two years before, but was still very ambiguous.

And, it is a simple fact that theoretical physicists only get Nobel Prizes after their predictions are verified by observation. That is part of why Hawking hasn't received one. They are not awarded posthumously.

The barrier to progress here was not science, but atheism, Hoyle and many others openly mocked and rejected the primeval atom as 'pseudoscience' and 'big bang' explicitly because of what they complained of as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event. I know Wikipedia isn't the end all of knowledge, but they are hardly biased towards theists!

Now look at what year Hoyle proposed the SST: 1948. That is almost 30 years after Freidmann, Walker, and LeMaitre formulated the *basic* expanding universe proposal. I'd also point out that Hoyle's viewpoint *is* an expanding universe, but just a different version than LeMaitre's. It was also the same year that the Alpher-Bethe-Gamov paper on element abundances was published (with a follow-up by Gamov in 1953).

But it was also 16 years before the first observation of the cosmic background radiation, which ultimately (but not immediately) showed the Steady State theory to be wrong (in conjunction with other data about quasars and young galaxies).

So why are you so set about the biases of *one* cosmologist? Hoyle's views were *far* from being the default. He was even seen as a bit of a kook later in his life.

If you think it had nothing to do with ideological implications, you would have had to have argued your assertion with atheist cosmologists at the time, they openly admitted it.

One did: Hoyle. But most of the rest of the cosmologists were both atheists and in support of the Big Bang scenario.

Lemaitre in stark contrast did what a scientist is supposed to do, go out of his way to distance his theory from his own beliefs- even writing to the Pope to tell him to knock it off with the gloating!

And he rose to the top of his field and was widely acknowledged as such.

Hoyle never accepted the evidence to his dying day, it's hard to change your mind to believe in something you already mocked, no matter the evidence. And that's the ultimate problem with atheism- it's very difficult for a person to remove themselves from a belief they don't even acknowledge as such.

That's one of the difficulties of being human. When quantum theory came along, many of the older (and some of the younger) physicists rejected it because of biases concerning how a scientific theory 'should' work: it 'should' make definite predictions about specific events. Quantum mechanics doesn't do that.

And *that* circles back to the topic at hand: quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory by most definitions of 'causality'. I am attempting to see whether the notion of causality should be expanded or simply dropped as being outdated.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe it considering we don't know enough about the quantum world to even attempt to explain cause or effect.

Why do you believe this? What could an 'explanation' for cause and effect look like?

Actually, cause and effect doesn't work with the Almighty God. He makes the rules according to His will. Cause and effect is something some scientist dreamt up.

So no argument from 'first cause' to justify God's existence can be used?

 

[Thief]

One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

phd?.....

I was taught in grade school.....cause and effect
and they cannot be separated

ALL experiment relies on that relationship
the effect must be linked to the cause

 

[McBell]

phd?.....

I was taught in grade school.....cause and effect
and they cannot be separated

ALL experiment relies on that relationship
the effect must be linked to the cause

What caused God?

Remember, if you claim God has no cause, you shoot your above quoted post in the foot and leave it hobbling for life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I could easily challenge that LeMaitre's observation (essentially a solution of Einstein's equations) were NOT the 'greatest scientific discovery of all time'. First of all, the Einstein equations he worked with would certainly have higher precedence. Also, LeMaitre was one of *three* people who found essentially that found the same solution. Finally, it had to be elaborated by Alpher, Bethe, and Gamov to get to the place it had deeper content (prediction of elemental abundances and background radiation).

Now, we can have a deeper discussion of the biases of the Nobel committee over time, but failing to give LeMaitre a prize was not out of bounds. Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize for his most fundamental theoreticall work (special and general relativity), but for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. The point is that at the time of LeMaitre's death, the evidence *for* the Big Bang was still rather soft. The background radiation had first been observed two years before, but was still very ambiguous.

And, it is a simple fact that theoretical physicists only get Nobel Prizes after their predictions are verified by observation. That is part of why Hawking hasn't received one. They are not awarded posthumously.



Now look at what year Hoyle proposed the SST: 1948. That is almost 30 years after Freidmann, Walker, and LeMaitre formulated the *basic* expanding universe proposal. I'd also point out that Hoyle's viewpoint *is* an expanding universe, but just a different version than LeMaitre's. It was also the same year that the Alpher-Bethe-Gamov paper on element abundances was published (with a follow-up by Gamov in 1953).

But it was also 16 years before the first observation of the cosmic background radiation, which ultimately (but not immediately) showed the Steady State theory to be wrong (in conjunction with other data about quasars and young galaxies).

So why are you so set about the biases of *one* cosmologist? Hoyle's views were *far* from being the default. He was even seen as a bit of a kook later in his life.


One did: Hoyle. But most of the rest of the cosmologists were both atheists and in support of the Big Bang scenario.



And he rose to the top of his field and was widely acknowledged as such.



That's one of the difficulties of being human. When quantum theory came along, many of the older (and some of the younger) physicists rejected it because of biases concerning how a scientific theory 'should' work: it 'should' make definite predictions about specific events. Quantum mechanics doesn't do that.

And *that* circles back to the topic at hand: quantum mechanics is NOT a causal theory by most definitions of 'causality'. I am attempting to see whether the notion of causality should be expanded or simply dropped as being outdated.

If there is any question on how influential Hoyle's stance was at the time, ask yourself where the pejorative term 'Big Bang' came from, and why that stuck rather than the far better descriptive name given by the actual founder of the theory 'Primeval Atom'

So the theory that had uncomfortably theistic implications as explicitly stated by many at the time, is given a pejorative name, publicly mocked by several atheist cosmologists and not academically accepted until proven beyond all reasonable doubt decades later-

Now look at steady state, big crunch, string theory, M theory, multiverses... anything with more academically fashionable perceived implications-- not mocked, but all accepted as entirely plausible competitive theories, usually strongly implied in their turn as as 'probably true' until utterly debunked where testable- tiny bit of a double 'scientific' standard?

Classical physics, similarly held some attractive materialistic implications for many, leaving no apparent room for such 'supernatural' concepts as mysterious underlying guiding forces, predetermining how physical reality would develop according to finely tuned specific instructions.

Do you really think it complete coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were skeptics of atheism?

The common thread here is that right or wrong, atheism/naturalism has an inherent tendency and history of seeking to prematurely close the case at the simplest most comprehensive 'God refuting' explanation at hand- and call any further investigation 'pseudoscience' or 'science denial'. The simplest explanation is the most tempting yes, but reality does not share our fondness for Occam's razor!

If we put aside these barriers, we have no reservations about following the evidence ever deeper, always looking for more and better answers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just to be clear, I don't read everyone's posts, so I guess I missed your challenge. And even your "challenge" here fails to qualify as such

"My challenge is clear and specific, the underlying Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence including the relationship of energy and matter have no known cause, and we likely will never determine the cause or causes"​

This is a statement, not a challenge, and all I can say is, if that's what you believe then that's what you believe.

.

It is late and I will respond another day in more detail.
It is not what I believe, it is a matter of fact of science that science cannot falsify nor demonstrate a cause for the Natural Laws, nor the cause of the basic particles and nature of the Quantum World at this level we can only be descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.

There is most definitely a point in the fundamental level where cause and effect does not apply.

 

[Grandliseur]

One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

Does not the laws of inertia kind of state this 'law' of cause and effect!
Quote: "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Also,
First law of thermodynamics: "Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted."

Do you not see that when there is a cause there is also a corresponding effect in both of these natural laws?!

To me this implies a strict enforcing of cause and effect. In the case of human behavior and good or evil actions (if you want to go there), the Christian belief is that God impartially, quoting, "
Proverbs 24:12 . . .he himself that is observing your soul know and certainly pay back to earthling man according to his activity. . ."
- also -
Romans 2:6-11 6 And he will render to each one according to his works: 7 everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibleness by endurance in work that is good; 8 however, for those who are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness there will be wrath and anger, 9 tribulation and distress, upon the soul of every man who works what is injurious, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

Thus, whether natural laws, or laws upheld by God's angels, the cause and effect principle seems to be established across the board.

 

[omega2xx]

Then please present some evidences, and not just your declaration of your faith.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God. Now present your evidence that matter, energy and life are eternal or can be produced out of nothing or what ever fairy tale is included in your theology.

Your faith and your claim for your creator deity is merely a projection of your belief, which are in no way "evidence", nor impartial.

Not 100%. There is no evidence that matter is eternal. It is certainly scientific illogical that anything, let alone a universe so vast we don't know its limits, can be made from nothing. It is illogical that energy can produce itself out of nothing and it is impossible for lie to have originated by accident or from lifeless elements.

I go by evidences, not belief. And I have known you for 8 months now, and in that time, you have never presented any evidence.

You do not. You have absolutely no evidence that God doe snot exist, that matter etc is eternal or that something can produce something. Your accept what you believe the very same way i accept what I believe---by faith alone.

I have admitted I have no verifiable proof that God exist. I have admitted that spiritual concepts CAN'T be proved, which is more than you have done. You can't eve prove one thing the TOE with all of its evangelists preach.

 

[omega2xx]

The case of static electricity causes an explosion of flammable materials has no human cause.

Bingo. It does happen an since it has no human cause, it must have a cause outside of man. I'll let you guess what that cause is.

I was specific in this thread and I have been specific in previous threads

.

The only thing you have been specific about is that I am wrong and you are right. Your OPINIONS are not evidence.

I have repeatedly responded with academic references and you have failed to respond. For example the problem of the delta of the Colorado River. I gave a detailed reference describing the formation of the deltas involved. You failed to acknowledge nor respond.

I don't remember that. If you want my response, post it again.

Once upon a time . . . Sounds kind of the stuff of myth and legend.

I didn't use "once upon a time," for my remarks. Pleas don't embellish my remarks.

Need coherent references, and not "Yeas ago, and I can't find it now,"

Actually there is no law of cause and effect. You may be referring to the related Laws of the Conservation of Energy and Matter, or maybe the Laws of Thermodynamics.

"Law of Cause and Effect

Nothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence "We reap what we sow". Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws". The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Every human thought, word and deed is a Cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe which in turn creates the effect whether desirable or undesirable. The law states the effect must to physical manifestation. This is why good thoughts, words, emotions, and deeds are essential for a better world for the all create good effects."

When you become omniscient, I will take you more seriously.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does not the laws of inertia kind of state this 'law' of cause and effect!
Quote: "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Also,
First law of thermodynamics: "Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted."

Do you not see that when there is a cause there is also a corresponding effect in both of these natural laws?!

These Laws cannot determine nor even imply that there is cause of the Laws of Nature, nor the fundamental particles and nature of the Quantum world. In fact we have no known cause for the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves.

The turning on the light is not a good example. The First Law does imply that energy and matter has always eternally existed in one form or another. The claim of an act of Creation as the first cause would be a theological assumption and not based on objective verifiable evidence nor the Laws of Nature determined through science

 

[Grandliseur]

These Laws cannot determine nor even imply that there is cause of the Laws of Nature, nor the fundamental particles and nature of the Quantum world. In fact we have no known cause for the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves.

The turning on the light is not a good example. The First Law does imply that energy and matter has always eternally existed in one form or another. The claim of an act of Creation as the first cause would be a theological assumption and not based on objective verifiable evidence nor the Laws of Nature determined through science

If you care to read the main question again, you will see this sentence: "Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated."

The person here is not asking for theological matters, it seems to me. S/he is asking for this law as it applies to science. It was in this spirit that I answered. I did include what God does. Thus, you statement "The claim of an act of Creation as the first cause would be a theological assumption . . " - is all I attempted to do for this question that seemed to ask for how it functions in science. I gave him two such examples of cause and effect in the natural laws we know. I didn't try to do anything else except to explain how God also does work on this foundation principle in judgment.

If you don't believe in God, there isn't anything for you about it in my answer.

 

[Polymath257]

If there is any question on how influential Hoyle's stance was at the time, ask yourself where the pejorative term 'Big Bang' came from, and why that stuck rather than the far better descriptive name given by the actual founder of the theory 'Primeval Atom'

Look at those designations and ask which would get headlines better.

So the theory that had uncomfortably theistic implications as explicitly stated by many at the time, is given a pejorative name, publicly mocked by several atheist cosmologists and not academically accepted until proven beyond all reasonable doubt decades later-

Name one other major physicist that mocked the BB. I think you *drastically* underestimate the support the BB had even in the 1950 and1960's. There were *two* main theories that described the expanding universe. Both were seen to have major flaws. From what I can tell, the balance of opinion the side of the BB, but the evidence wasn't able to distinguish between them. Once the evidence broke to the BB, the SST lost ground rather quickly.

Now look at steady state, big crunch, string theory, M theory, multiverses... anything with more academically fashionable perceived implications-- not mocked, but all accepted as entirely plausible competitive theories, usually strongly implied in their turn as as 'probably true' until utterly debunked where testable- tiny bit of a double 'scientific' standard?

The BBT *was* accepted as plausible among most physicists. You point to *one* person, Hoyle, who was a bit of a jerk and even a kook at times, and say that was the dominant opinion. It never was.

In the case of the ideas you present, with the exception of the SST, they are seen as possible *extensions* of the BB theory. But I think *everyone* agrees we don't have the evidence to distinguish between the alternatives.

So, no, I don't see a double standard in the scientific community. The cosmologists look at the various alternatives, see what the evidence says, acknowledge when the evidence is weak or when it doens't say which view is correct,, and try to extend the ideas that have worked so far into new realms.

Classical physics, similarly held some attractive materialistic implications for many, leaving no apparent room for such 'supernatural' concepts as mysterious underlying guiding forces, predetermining how physical reality would develop according to finely tuned specific instructions.

The fact that it agreed with the evidence and observations, with no alternative available at the time, is completely irrelevant?

Do you really think it complete coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were skeptics of atheism?

I have no idea what you mean. Planck got a Nobel prize in 1918. His contribution to quantum theory is not questioned.

The common thread here is that right or wrong, atheism/naturalism has an inherent tendency and history of seeking to prematurely close the case at the simplest most comprehensive 'God refuting' explanation at hand- and call any further investigation 'pseudoscience' or 'science denial'. The simplest explanation is the most tempting yes, but reality does not share our fondness for Occam's razor!

I think you distort history to promote your bias here. It is *common* for evidence to be ambiguous. When that happens, it is *expected* that several different explanations are offered. Often those explanations are 'way out' and generally dismissed at first, but kept in reserve depending on how the evidence breaks.

I think your complaints about LeMaitre and the BBT are way off base. The relevant solutions to Einstein's equations were found my multiple people. As Einstein's ideas were verified, the expanding universe models gained attention and popularity. When the evidence was ambiguous, several explanations were considered. When the evidence broke, opinion settled on the prefered one fairly quickly.

What you seem to be proposing is that nobody can 'mock' any viewpoint at any stage of the game, and that your preferred alternative should be immediately adopted even if the evidence is weak.

If we put aside these barriers, we have no reservations about following the evidence ever deeper, always looking for more and better answers.

And that is *precisely* what happens.

 

[Polymath257]

Does not the laws of inertia kind of state this 'law' of cause and effect!
Quote: "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

Also,
First law of thermodynamics: "Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted."

Do you not see that when there is a cause there is also a corresponding effect in both of these natural laws?!

Well, the first has been overturned when Newtonian dynamics was found to be incomplete. In particular, it is simply wrong in quantum theory.

The second has also been modified (mass is an aspect of energy now), but has no direct implications to causality, per se. Instead, it limits the range of possibilities without dictating one of them (as causality would).

To me this implies a strict enforcing of cause and effect. In the case of human behavior and good or evil actions (if you want to go there), the Christian belief is that God impartially, quoting, "
Proverbs 24:12 . . .he himself that is observing your soul know and certainly pay back to earthling man according to his activity. . ."
- also -
Romans 2:6-11 6 And he will render to each one according to his works: 7 everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibleness by endurance in work that is good; 8 however, for those who are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness there will be wrath and anger, 9 tribulation and distress, upon the soul of every man who works what is injurious, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

Thus, whether natural laws, or laws upheld by God's angels, the cause and effect principle seems to be established across the board.

Not so. In fact, it seems to be mostly discarded in the quantum world. There is a remnant, which basically says that influences cannot happen faster than light. But the basic theory is probabilistic and those probabilities are seen as fundamental, not the result of something deeper.

 

[Polymath257]

The heavens are declaring the glory of God. Now present your evidence that matter, energy and life are eternal or can be produced out of nothing or what ever fairy tale is included in your theology.



Not 100%. There is no evidence that matter is eternal. It is certainly scientific illogical that anything, let alone a universe so vast we don't know its limits, can be made from nothing. It is illogical that energy can produce itself out of nothing and it is impossible for lie to have originated by accident or from lifeless elements.

NOBODY claims there was a time when nothing existed and a later time where the universe existed. So the concept of 'made from nothing' is a completely wrong characterization.

Now, there are descriptions where matter condenses out of a high energy vacuum. But in those, space and time already exist. So does the energy.

You do not. You have absolutely no evidence that God doe snot exist, that matter etc is eternal or that something can produce something. Your accept what you believe the very same way i accept what I believe---by faith alone.

I have admitted I have no verifiable proof that God exist. I have admitted that spiritual concepts CAN'T be proved, which is more than you have done. You can't eve prove one thing the TOE with all of its evangelists preach.

This isn't a discussion about TOE. It is a discussion about causality. So, while discussing a 'cause' for the Big Bang might be relevant, questions about evolution are not.

 

[Polymath257]

"Law of Cause and Effect

Nothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence "We reap what we sow". Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws". The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Every human thought, word and deed is a Cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe which in turn creates the effect whether desirable or undesirable. The law states the effect must to physical manifestation. This is why good thoughts, words, emotions, and deeds are essential for a better world for the all create good effects."
.

OK, so how does this apply to a planet orbiting the sun? How does this apply to a star forming out of a nebula?

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you believe this? What could an 'explanation' for cause and effect look like?



So no argument from 'first cause' to justify God's existence can be used?

I have no idea. I've seen a few. I wasn't impressed.

No. God has always existed. God created 'time' itself. There was no "before God" and there will be no "after God."

Einstein showed that the amount of time passage is based on each individual observer. If the observer is God who created time He easily transcends it and defines it however He wishes. He can also change it at will. The Almighty has absolute power over everything He created, including time.

 

[Grandliseur]

Well, the first has been overturned when Newtonian dynamics was found to be incomplete. In particular, it is simply wrong in quantum theory.

The second has also been modified (mass is an aspect of energy now), but has no direct implications to causality, per se. Instead, it limits the range of possibilities without dictating one of them (as causality would).



Not so. In fact, it seems to be mostly discarded in the quantum world. There is a remnant, which basically says that influences cannot happen faster than light. But the basic theory is probabilistic and those probabilities are seen as fundamental, not the result of something deeper.

You seem to speak about the quantum world exclusively; Yet, in our macro classical world of physics we still operate the way I mentioned.

Here is a quote for you: "Yet, after nearly a century of debate, physicists and philosophers of science can agree only that there is no real consensus on what quantum theory actually says about the world. " It is therefore quite true in our classical human interaction with our world that if I kick a ball or hit it with a bat, my experience with cause and effect can either make me an excellent player or someone who thinks that he needs his quantum computer to figure out how to avoid the strangeness of the quantum reactions he believes he shall be subjected to.

But, like Catholic priests who can philosophize Schrodinger's cat to live in a parallel world before the debate even is a minute old - thereby totally evading all common ground, you seem to like to join their camp. That's fine with me. You should try to convince a policeman at an accident you caused that it was entirely due to quantum effects and not you drinking too much that you had an accident.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bingo. It does happen an since it has no human cause, it must have a cause outside of man. I'll let you guess what that cause is.

Objectively true, but humans are a product of a chain of cause and effects within nature, The Theist will assert the ultimate cause is God, the Philosophical Naturalist, like Ralph Waldo Emerson (a Pantheist) believe our existence is a product of nature. Both represent philosophical/theological assumptions.

The only thing you have been specific about is that I am wrong and you are right. Your OPINIONS are not evidence.

False, I gave scientific references, and you have not.

"Law of Cause and Effect

Nothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence "We reap what we sow". Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws". The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Every human thought, word and deed is a Cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe which in turn creates the effect whether desirable or undesirable. The law states the effect must to physical manifestation. This is why good thoughts, words, emotions, and deeds are essential for a better world for the all create good effects."

The reference to the 'Laws of cause and effect' and Ralph Waldo Emerson is a product of Foolgling.*

*Foolgling - Mindless Googling to come up with anything remotely hinting at what you want, but in reality is 'non sequitur,'

First, Ralph Waldo Emerson was a 19th century philosopher, Unitarian, and believed in Pantheism. He believed the universe was self-caused. and had no cause outside the universe itself.

Second, Emerson was not a scientist presenting a view of a scientific Law of cause and effect.

"Standing on the bare ground,my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space,all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God."
America's Founding Spiritual Seeker

Fourth, Emerson would not remotely support your view of Creation, first cause nor Theism

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to speak about the quantum world exclusively; Yet, in our macro classical world of physics we still operate the way I mentioned.

Here is a quote for you: "Yet, after nearly a century of debate, physicists and philosophers of science can agree only that there is no real consensus on what quantum theory actually says about the world. " It is therefore quite true in our classical human interaction with our world that if I kick a ball or hit it with a bat, my experience with cause and effect can either make me an excellent player or someone who things that he needs his quantum computer to figure out how to avoid the strangeness of the quantum reactions he believes he shall be subjected to.

But, like Catholic priests who can philosophize Schrodinger's cat to live in a parallel world before the debate even is a minute old - thereby totally evading all common ground, you seem to like to join their camp. That's fine with me. You should try to convince a policeman at an accident you caused that it was entirely due to quantum effects and not you drinking too much that you had an accident.

And I agree that causality works at the macroscopic level, at least most of the time (there are ways of magnifying quantum events to macroscopic levels, but hose are specialized). We even generally understand how that macroscopic causality comes about from the lack of causality at the quantum level (it is a type of law of averages and the fact that there are a LOT of atoms in any macroscopic sample).

But, if anything, that makes the basic question even more interesting: what is the law of cause and effect? What does it mean to be a cause? What does it mean to be an effect? How, if at all, is this law just an application of natural laws to the situation?

 

[Polymath257]

I have no idea. I've seen a few. I wasn't impressed.

No. God has always existed. God created 'time' itself. There was no "before God" and there will be no "after God."

Hmmm...pretty much what I would say about the universe.

Einstein showed that the amount of time passage is based on each individual observer. If the observer is God who created time He easily transcends it and defines it however He wishes. He can also change it at will. The Almighty has absolute power over everything He created, including time.

A nice theory. I am waiting for specifics of the detailed process by which a universe and time is created. What laws are applicable in this context? Does causality make sense in this situation?

This reminds me that the belief in the ability of God to intervene at any point was part of the reason Islamic science faltered: why look for natural laws if their very existence negated the freedom of God to do as He wills?