Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[Eucharisted]

How could something which has infinite power proceed from absolute nothing?
If that were true then it would not have infinite power.

If all existence proceeded from nothing, then you are saying that there was such a thing as nothing. Thats impossible.
t

He’s saying that something with infinite power had to create the Universe from nothing, as a show of their infinite power. (Since something with finite power can create something from something, such as combining two hydrogen and one oxygen to make water)

Nothing isn’t something. God didn’t exist in nothing and create the Universe from nothing; God alone existed, and than He created the Universe. That’s what the dogma of creation being creating from nothing means.

 

[MindOverMatter]

He’s saying that something with infinite power had to create the Universe from nothing, as a show of their infinite power. (Since something with finite power can create something from something, such as combining two hydrogen and one oxygen to make water)

Nothing isn’t something. God didn’t exist in nothing and create the Universe from nothing; God alone existed, and than He created the Universe. That’s what the dogma of creation being creating from nothing means.

fare enough, i agree with what you are saying here.
But the poster said “all existence”. Which made me think he was claiming that all existence came out of nothing. But God is existence.

 

[Jerry_Vilt]

I didn’t mean “all existence” to include God. Sorry if I misled you. However, God’s existence is uncaused, whereas all the existences we know of are caused existences. That’s why I included “all existence”.

 

[Jerry_Vilt]

Aquinas stated "Our knowledge of God’s existence is NOT self-evident.

ALL our knowledge begins with our senses…knowledge that is certainly NOT God!

Thus in the very beginning all of our knowledge of existence is of caused existence. From this we reason to an uncaused existence…God.

 

[TeresaofRoses]

Cause and effect is something you can wrap your head around. However, when you boil down Aquinas’ what caused the cause ie. the “big bang”, I find myself in uncharted territory. I did go to the Quantum Physics for Dummies and I will have to admit it flew over my head mach one. When I try to contemplate ‘nothing’ it is only an abstract in my mind. Vacuum, now that’s something else. The bell jar in science class explained that to me. For all our science and great minds that study and theorize, in the end even the Nobel Laureate will admit that there are things that can’t be explained, and if you catch a glimpse at an answer, there are still more questions.

 

[aileron]

why should there be a universe at all? why is there anything? i often hear the continual misinterpretation of quantum virtual particles as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe. people commonly misunderstand that this is more than a theory about the behavior of virtual particles in a vacuum.

people tend to think that a ‘vacuum’ is the same thing as ‘nothing’. its not! a vacuum, even a perfect vacuum, is a dimensionally defined space.

there is no physical reason why anything should exist at all. not even a vacuum. i wonder by what method an atheist may say we came into existence? if there be no physical reason for existence, we shouldn’t be here should we?

There is an obvious bias in your thinking. Why should nothing be the default state? The bias is that nothing should be the default state in order to support a creation ex nihilo argument.

There is a real problem here. Since you’ve just made nothingness the default state, there should be nothing including God, and there could be no creation ex nihilo and we would not be here to ask the question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Cause and effect is something you can wrap your head around. However, when you boil down Aquinas’ what caused the cause ie. the “big bang”, I find myself in uncharted territory. I did go to the Quantum Physics for Dummies and I will have to admit it flew over my head mach one. When I try to contemplate ‘nothing’ it is only an abstract in my mind. Vacuum, now that’s something else. The bell jar in science class explained that to me. For all our science and great minds that study and theorize, in the end even the Nobel Laureate will admit that there are things that can’t be explained, and if you catch a glimpse at an answer, there are still more questions.

nothing can cause itself, if it doesnt exist, it cant act to cause its own existence. this makes a non-physical creation the only other possibility.

if you are asking if the non-physical needs a cause, non-physical things can be eternal, physical things cannot.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is an obvious bias in your thinking. Why should nothing be the default state? The bias is that nothing should be the default state in order to support a creation ex nihilo argument.

because we dont have empirical evidence to suggest that the universe always existed.

there is also sufficient cause, second law of thermodynaimcs, the infinite time problem, and im sure i could google a few more.

but as a rationalist, working from observed conditions, it is sufficient for me that we have no scientific evidence that would suggest such. in fact we observe big bang conditions, and an accelerating expansion with no end in sight.

There is a real problem here. Since you’ve just made nothingness the default state, there should be nothing including God, and there could be no creation ex nihilo and we would not be here to ask the question.

 

[JDaniel]

Cause and effect is something you can wrap your head around. However, when you boil down Aquinas’ what caused the cause ie. the “big bang”, I find myself in uncharted territory. I did go to the Quantum Physics for Dummies and I will have to admit it flew over my head mach one. When I try to contemplate ‘nothing’ it is only an abstract in my mind. Vacuum, now that’s something else. The bell jar in science class explained that to me. For all our science and great minds that study and theorize, in the end even the Nobel Laureate will admit that there are things that can’t be explained, and if you catch a glimpse at an answer, there are still more questions.

Good points, T-of-R. Think of it this way, you are familiar with cause-effect actions, right? For example, you have seen houses come to be. The finished house is an effect, but, that does not necessarily mean that it becomes a cause, too. So, there are causes that cause, there are effects that cause, and, there are effects that simply remain effects. The efficient cause of the house is the builder, for example, and he can become the efficient cause of many more houses, can’t he?

So, God is like him with one huge exception: although Mr. Builder was caused (by his parents), God is not caused. God had no parents, if you want to think of it that way. The big bang was caused most likely, but not necessarily, by God. Perhaps there was something before the singularity that caused it. That there was will probably forever be out of our grasp.

Nothing means, “no things”. It can’t be a delineated space, or place, because then it becomes itself a thing. So, you can’t have a three ft. x three ft. x three foot container of nothing. Often, we confuse something like this with a “vacuum”. But, even a vacuum is delineated. Also, as far as we know, all vacuums contains quantum particles, such as light and other cosmic particles. Even way out in space, areas of almost pure vacuum contain such things as dark matter, dark energy and light. Beyond the exterior of the known universe may be where nothing resides.

You are right; very confusing!

jd

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

why should there be a universe at all? why is there anything? i often hear the continual misinterpretation of quantum virtual particles as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe. people commonly misunderstand that this is more than a theory about the behavior of virtual particles in a vacuum.

people tend to think that a ‘vacuum’ is the same thing as ‘nothing’. its not! a vacuum, even a perfect vacuum, is a dimensionally defined space.

there is no physical reason why anything should exist at all. not even a vacuum. i wonder by what method an atheist may say we came into existence? if there be no physical reason for existence, we shouldn’t be here should we?

That first question can’t be fully answered by scientific means. It’s like asking, “Why is string ?”, or “Why is Arcturus ?”. A philosophy that excludes the possibility of solutions that have a metaphysical basis (& metaphysics is not in good repute these days in certain quarters), cripples its capacity to receive answers more nearly adequate than it has been able to conceive of: as though a child were to deny the very possibility that the universe cannot be accounted for as adequately it could be if only the child were open to the possibility that what a seven-year old can receive, is not as adequate as what a more mature person should be able to receive.​

The real answer to “why the universe ?” is not scientific - it exceeds science, because this is a Christological question. That the answer is Christ, does not make science useless - it just puts it in its proper place; & that is what allows science to be as fully scientific as it ought to be. So Christ does not swamp or obliterate science - equally, science is not ultimate, because no creature can be ultimate: we all have to know our places; we can’t be happy if we don’t. And neither can science. Or atheists. To answer the question in purely scientific categories alone, stultifies the answer, because it then becomes less fully true than it could be - & should be.

Gobbledygook ? Perhaps - but no more so than materialist & scientistic forms of atheism. They have their philosophical & cosmological ideas - so do Christians. ISTM that our gobbledygook is more adequate than those they profess, because it embraces more; & it allows creatures (which is what we are) to be porous to God, without being obliterated by Him.

Is your question asked with reference to Genesis 1.1 ?

 

[greylorn]

Aquinas stated "Our knowledge of God’s existence is NOT self-evident.

ALL our knowledge begins with our senses…knowledge that is certainly NOT God!

Thus in the very beginning all of our knowledge of existence is of caused existence. From this we reason to an uncaused existence…God.

With all due respect, PC admission that you are a human being and due every iota of my personal respect, may I humbly submit that the ideas (or whatever) you’ve expressed here are the expression of a mind which will, in subsequent incarnations exceed the brilliance of Albert Einstein, could have been expressed by the rat I shot yesterday, if I’d only known how to read whatever passes in it for mind
.

 

[aileron]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The universe is not everything. We have empirical evidence to suggest this.

ive never heard of any, what are you refering to?

You’re stabbing in the dark here.

those are a few of the more common refutations of an eternal universe argument.

We have plenty of scientific evidence that would suggest that the start of our universe was a transitional event, not a creation ex nihilo.

once again, i dont know of any of that either, what are you refering to?

Why is that? Can you prove this claim?

sure, if something does not exist, it cannot act to cause itself.

ergo, nothing physical can cause itself, leaving as the only possibility, a non-physical cause.

thats why first cause must be non-physical.

 

[aileron]

what are you refering to?

M-Theory

sure, if something does not exist, it cannot act to cause itself.

ergo, nothing physical can cause itself, leaving as the only possibility, a non-physical cause.

thats why first cause must be non-physical.

OK… let’s break this down.

Premise 1: If something does not exist, it cannot act to cause itself
Premise 2: Nothing physical can cause itself
Conclusion: A non-physical cause is required.

First of all, let’s assume causality for sake of argument. Causality in physics isn’t exactly dead, but it has been lying by the roadside bleeding for the last many decades (and in any case I think we should be talking about constancy not causality). Still, let’s assume causality for now.

Even assuming causality, you missed a step here that is implied and required.

Premise 3: Nothing physical existed before a non-physical cause created it

Premise 3 is a huge assumption. Not only does it reject without evidence that nothing physical existed at some point, it also assumes a non-physical entity’s existence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

M-Theory

m-theory is a permutation of the ever changing string theory, its all theoretical. a physicists fairy tale at this point. there is no empirical evidence stemming from m-theory. its all theory.

even were it settled it still doenst avoid being contingent on these pre-existing branes.

but the main point is that there is no evidence of m-theory, its all conjecture.

OK… let’s break this down.

Premise 1: If something does not exist, it cannot act to cause itself
Premise 2: Nothing physical can cause itself
Conclusion: A non-physical cause is required.

there is no premise 2, or at least i dont mena there to be.

First of all, let’s assume causality for sake of argument. Causality in physics isn’t exactly dead, but it has been lying by the roadside bleeding for the last many decades (and in any case I think we should be talking about constancy not causality). Still, let’s assume causality for now.

if you refer to VP and assorted ideas, they are contingent on a vacuum already existing, if your refering to VP or radioactive decay as uncaused, you mistake an inability to predict the event for the event being uncaused.

causality is a law as strong as gravity, thermodynamics etc. all laws come from universal experience, as david hume said

so its not an assumption, its a rock solid fact.

Even assuming causality, you missed a step here that is implied and required.

Premise 3: Nothing physical existed before a non-physical cause created it

Premise 3 is a huge assumption. Not only does it reject without evidence that nothing physical existed at some point, it also assumes a non-physical entity’s existence.

i didn’t make a 3rd premise, in fact ive mentioned the refutations for an eternal universe, which is what something physical pre-existing this universe would be.

there is no evidence of something pre-existing the universe, m-theory is another of the string theory fairytales, even if true, it just goes back to an eternal universe, one consisting of these branes.

nor do i assume a non-physical entity, only that first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

as to whether that is some entity or not the immediate argument doesnt address it.

you may get a better idea of sciences utility in this arena and why, if you check out the OP of the thread “science is worthless” you may be shocked to learn that there is no natural, scientific explanation possible at all.

 

[aileron]

m-theory is a permutation of the ever changing string theory, its all theoretical. a physicists fairy tale at this point. there is no empirical evidence stemming from m-theory. its all theory.

They may be right or wrong, it’s beside the point. The point is that everything we know about nature today leads us to conclude that cosmic inflation required energy. We also have somewhat confidently induced the conservation of energy, so physicists do not think of cosmic inflation as a creation ex nihilo.

even were it settled it still doenst avoid being contingent on these pre-existing branes.

I’m not seeing a problem here. Whether the energy of cosmic inflation took the shape of our mathematical models or not doesn’t affect our induction that it was required.

but the main point is that there is no evidence of m-theory, its all conjecture.

As with all new science, right? Supposing it’s wrong, it still does not mean that we must conclude creation ex nihilo. Given what we know about the conservation of energy, it is unnecessary and indeed unhelpful to propose a god of the gaps argument. We’ve made that mistake too many times in the past, even the supreme genius Newton made that mistake when he could not solve problems with planetary orbits.

if you refer to VP and assorted ideas, they are contingent on a vacuum already existing, if your refering to VP or radioactive decay as uncaused, you mistake an inability to predict the event for the event being uncaused.

causality is a law as strong as gravity, thermodynamics etc. all laws come from universal experience, as david hume said

so its not an assumption, its a rock solid fact.

I’m referring to causality in the sense of Copenhagen Interpretation versus EPR. Since this schism in the 30’s new theory and experiments have consistently supported Copenhagen and have consistently sided against EPR. There have been some attempts at rescuing causality, but they cannot produce experimental results so scientifically it may be meaningless to discuss them. In any case, causality or no, it does not affect the discussion that much. There is no need to posit a god of the gaps argument for cosmic inflation.

i didn’t make a 3rd premise, in fact ive mentioned the refutations for an eternal universe, which is what something physical pre-existing this universe would be.

Actually, you did. You assume it in your argument. Otherwise, your argument doesn’t lead to your conclusion.

there is no evidence of something pre-existing the universe, m-theory is another of the string theory fairytales, even if true, it just goes back to an eternal universe, one consisting of these branes.

If it “goes back to an eternal universe” then what need is there for a creation ex nihilo?

nor do i assume a non-physical entity, only that first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

as to whether that is some entity or not the immediate argument doesnt address it.

Very well. Non-physical. Describe what this means.

you may get a better idea of sciences utility in this arena and why, if you check out the OP of the thread “science is worthless” you may be shocked to learn that there is no natural, scientific explanation possible at all.

I would be nicer in my manner of saying this, but based on the arrogant way you worded your response I must simply state: You are the master of the obvious.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They may be right or wrong, it’s beside the point. The point is that everything we know about nature today leads us to conclude that cosmic inflation required energy. We also have somewhat confidently induced the conservation of energy, so physicists do not think of cosmic inflation as a creation ex nihilo.

im sure they dont think of it that way. they just dont have any evidence otherwise, its not a very scientific idea, it offends their sensibilities. they have faith that there is a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

I’m not seeing a problem here. Whether the energy of cosmic inflation took the shape of our mathematical models or not doesn’t affect our induction that it was required.

a pre existing universe weather branes, or rabbits, is just another claim to an eternal universe. cyclic, static, it all comes down to an eternal universe.

As with all new science, right? Supposing it’s wrong, it still does not mean that we must conclude creation ex nihilo. Given what we know about the conservation of energy, it is unnecessary and indeed unhelpful to propose a god of the gaps argument. We’ve made that mistake too many times in the past, even the supreme genius Newton made that mistake when he could not solve problems with planetary orbits.

no G-d of the gaps here, a natural explanation is impossible because nothing can cause itself. that means no scientific explanation is possible.

that means that creation ex nihilo is the only possible cause. nothing can cause itself.

I’m referring to causality in the sense of Copenhagen Interpretation versus EPR. Since this schism in the 30’s new theory and experiments have consistently supported Copenhagen and have consistently sided against EPR. There have been some attempts at rescuing causality, but they cannot produce experimental results so scientifically it may be meaningless to discuss them. In any case, causality or no, it does not affect the discussion that much. There is no need to posit a god of the gaps argument for cosmic inflation.

what G-d of the gaps? i havent mentioned G-d have I?

as to various QM interpretations, all 11 of the common ones at least, still dont satisfy causality. VP is still dependent on a pre existing vacuum. no vacuum, no VP.

Actually, you did. You assume it in your argument. Otherwise, your argument doesn’t lead to your conclusion.

i neither made the premise or assumed it, because there is no evidence for it.

if you say there was a pre-existing universe, thats conjecture, its another eternal universe situation. whether it cycles or statics, its the same argument.

If it “goes back to an eternal universe” then what need is there for a creation ex nihilo?

because no matter how far you go back, that is where it ends up, nothing, can create itself. the eternal universe is where all attempts to deny cause end up. the only way something can be uncaused is to have always existed. thats why i gave you the common refutations to that arguement

Very well. Non-physical. Describe what this means.

something that is not physical, shares no common properties with physical matter.

I would be nicer in my manner of saying this, but based on the arrogant way you worded your response I must simply state: You are the master of the obvious.

as to arrogance, i am direct, if you care to read that as arrogance, it says more about your self esteem than anything about me.

 

[aileron]

im sure they dont think of it that way. they just dont have any evidence otherwise, its not a very scientific idea, it offends their sensibilities. they have faith that there is a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

What you are arguing, in effect is that the time tested approach of science, methodological naturalism should give way to god of the gaps.

a pre existing universe weather branes, or rabbits, is just another claim to an eternal universe. cyclic, static, it all comes down to an eternal universe.

More or less with an adjustment in terms. It comes down to an eternal nature.

no G-d of the gaps here, a natural explanation is impossible because nothing can cause itself. that means no scientific explanation is possible.

Nothing needs to “cause itself” if nature is eternal. Once again you’re starting with an unwritten ex nihilo assumption. What gives nothing status over eternal something?

that means that creation ex nihilo is the only possible cause. nothing can cause itself.

what G-d of the gaps? i havent mentioned G-d have I?

Very well, what is the cause of the ex nihilo event? You said nothing can cause itself, so what is the cause of the ex nihilo event?

as to various QM interpretations, all 11 of the common ones at least, still dont satisfy causality. VP is still dependent on a pre existing vacuum. no vacuum, no VP.

You’re preaching to the choir. Have you studied the Copenhagen Interpretation and the opposing EPR school? QM causality is ancillary to the discussion here in any case.

i neither made the premise or assumed it, because there is no evidence for it.
]if you say there was a pre-existing universe, thats conjecture, its another eternal universe situation. whether it cycles or statics, its the same argument.

So you would claim that our induction of the conservation of energy is incorrect based on what physical evidence? You are confounding inability to explain with lack of necessity predicted by theory.

because no matter how far you go back, that is where it ends up, nothing, can create itself.

Then I guess either A) we’re not here or B) something is eternal. Since we know nature is here, we don’t need to hypothesize beyond that.

the eternal universe is where all attempts to deny cause end up. the only way something can be uncaused is to have always existed. thats why i gave you the common refutations to that arguement

Yep… Nature always existed, so no need for a cause. We can induce this from the conservation of energy.

something that is not physical, shares no common properties with physical matter.

“Physical” and “physical matter” are not interchangeable.

as to arrogance, i am direct, if you care to read that as arrogance, it says more about your self esteem than anything about me.

I appreciate directness, even to the point of offensiveness. When people use expressions like “You may be surprised to learn” or some such, it really does assume a lot someone you don’t know.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What you are arguing, in effect is that the time tested approach of science, methodological naturalism should give way to god of the gaps.

what gaps are you talking about?

Nothing needs to “cause itself” if nature is eternal. Once again you’re starting with an unwritten ex nihilo assumption. What gives nothing status over eternal something?

nature cant be eternal for a number of reasons, the second law of thermodynamics, the inifinite time problem, sufficient cause, etc.

further, it isnt in accord with what we currently observe of the universe.

Very well, what is the cause of the ex nihilo event? You said nothing can cause itself, so what is the cause of the ex nihilo event?

the only remaining option is a non-physical event.

You’re preaching to the choir. Have you studied the Copenhagen Interpretation and the opposing EPR school? QM causality is ancillary to the discussion here in any case.

there are a bunch of different interpretations, none of which can account for something causing itself.

if it doesnt exist, it can act to cause itself.

So you would claim that our induction of the conservation of energy is incorrect based on what physical evidence?

where did i make that claim? where are you drawing that from.

You are confounding inability to explain with lack of necessity predicted by theory.

i dont understand this sentence. what do you want me to explain?

Then I guess either A) we’re not here or B) something is eternal. Since we know nature is here, we don’t need to hypothesize beyond that.

we’re not here? where does that come from? as for B) thats irrational, we have no evidence or reason to suppose that.

we must work from observed conditions, like any research. an eternal universe doesnt have any physical evidence, it violates some well known laws of physics, and philosophy, and on top of that, we can see a beginning in the BB, i could go on

so an eternal universe is not only unobserved and unevidenced, it would seem to be impossible.

if you care to take it on an article of faith anyways, welcome to theism

Yep… Nature always existed, so no need for a cause. We can induce this from the conservation of energy.

what, matter cant be created or destroyed? so the universe couldnt have been created? thats a law of this universe. first cause was prior to that law, so i dont see how it would be constrained as such.

“Physical” and “physical matter” are not interchangeable.

ok

I appreciate directness, even to the point of offensiveness. When people use expressions like “You may be surprised to learn” or some such, it really does assume a lot someone you don’t know.

i might say the same about QM interpretations, but since i wrote the formal argument that you are refering to, i would be greatly surprised if you had heard it before.

 

[aileron]

what gaps are you talking about?

Gaps in scientific understanding. People have a natural tendency to fill in these gaps with the supernatural, metaphysical, non-physical, whatever you want to call it. I did this myself for a number of years.

nature cant be eternal for a number of reasons, the second law of thermodynamics

So here you generalize the second law of thermodynamics to all nature, but not the first. If the first law is generalized to all nature, you’ve accepted an eternal universe. So why generalize the second law to all nature, but not the first? Even if you were to generalize 2 but not 1, the second law is not antithetical to an eternal universe. All it means is that eventually it will increase in entropy approaching heat death. It could still be eternal and would have to be if we didn’t discriminate which thermodynamic laws to generalize.

, the inifinite time problem, sufficient cause, etc.

Source or elaboration?

further, it isnt in accord with what we currently observe of the universe.

Sure it is. If we generalize the first law of thermodynamics to all nature as you did with the second.

the only remaining option is a non-physical event.

No, the other option (and IMO the best) is that we are simply ignorant. In the progress of science we have often tended to rely on supernatural, non-physical, whatever you want to call them reasons where we should properly leave it at “don’t know”.

there are a bunch of different interpretations, none of which can account for something causing itself.

if it doesnt exist, it can act to cause itself.

Then following the implications of your argument, what caused the non-physical first cause? If it is eternal-uncaused, why can’t nature be eternal-uncaused? We have nature before us. Why add an additional assumption?

where did i make that claim? where are you drawing that from.

It is a necessary implication of rejecting an eternal nature. You are rejecting the induction of conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics), which is the principle reasons only physicists influenced by religious dogma accept creation ex nihilo.

i dont understand this sentence. what do you want me to explain?

Our inability to explain something does not mean that it must be caused by something supernatural or a non-physical event.

we’re not here? where does that come from? as for B) thats irrational, we have no evidence or reason to suppose that.

I’m facetiously following the implications of your argumentation. You are making argumentation to support a creation ex nihilo, but your arguments rejecting a naturalistic explanation you are rejecting premises required for a creation ex nihilo argument.

we must work from observed conditions, like any research. an eternal universe doesnt have any physical evidence, it violates some well known laws of physics, and philosophy, and on top of that, we can see a beginning in the BB, i could go on

A non-physical event certainly lacks physical evidence, so you rule out one of your own objections. As far as violating known laws of physics (I won’t go into philosophy), there is nothing that says nature can’t do this. Our understanding of natural principles is known to be both incomplete and imperfect.

so an eternal universe is not only unobserved and unevidenced, it would seem to be impossible.

Of course we lack verification, and who knows what if any form it would take. We are going to need new physics that we just don’t have. I don’t think that makes it an impossibility.

if you care to take it on an article of faith anyways, welcome to theism

Years ago I used arguments near identical to yours to justify my beliefs and eventually when I thought through them at length the last reason I had to believe vanished. I was using them because in some sense I wanted to try to believe to please my family, etc. I’m not suggesting that these are your reasons for faith as they were in my case, or speculate if this is your principle reason for believing as it was mine years ago. Still, your arguments are so close to mine back then it’s like typing to a StarTrek-esque temporal anomaly of myself

what, matter cant be created or destroyed? so the universe couldnt have been created? thats a law of this universe. first cause was prior to that law, so i dont see how it would be constrained as such.

I’m saying that we have empirical evidence to support the conservation of energy. It is one of the most powerful predictive principles of physics. We generalize through the uniformity of nature. It may be an incorrect or induction or over generalization. Any induction could be incorrect or an over generalization – that is the nature of the induction beast. So no, we don’t know. However, I see no need to introduce an additional assumption of a first cause. Even though both are at least at present unprovable, they are not on equal standing - at least from a physics perspective. There is nothing indicating either the requirement or the utility for a non-physical first cause.