First Cause

[MindOverMatter2]

This illusion in its most successful form has been the subjugation of science as a mascot for atheist skepticism. If enough people in respectable positions of science doubt God or the proof for the existence of a first cause on some principle of scientific skepticism, confusion will exist and cause doubt in regards to the rational basis of considering the merits of a first cause argument that doesn’t require scientific notions of evidence. It thus succeeds in giving the impression that the argument cannot possibly be successful without science. They give the scientific method an epistemological value which it cannot possibly have, by placing its importance before metaphysical knowledge through an unwarranted and contextually biased skepticism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In my hypothesis a closed loop or system is cyclicle. Everything in existence evolves and reevolves. Nothing is lost or gained. It generates and regenerates. So why would there have to be anything outside???

Check post 316. It disproves the idea of a closed loop which doesn’t have a cause.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Coul the First Cause be Thor or Zeus?

Catholics believe that God (the One True God of Christendom) is the ONLY God,existing in union with Christ and the Holy Spirit, leaving Thor and Zeus as false gods.

So how are you as a Catholic asking if false gods could be the first cause?

 

[rel1]

Check post 316. It disproves the idea of a closed loop which doesn’t have a cause.

Cause and effect are actually one in the same in my closed loop. You can call it by another name of your choosing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Catholics believe that God (the One True God of Christendom) is the ONLY God,existing in union with Christ and the Holy Spirit, leaving Thor and Zeus as false gods.

So how are you as a Catholic asking if false gods could be the first cause?

Its a philosophical question, in the philosophy section of this forum; and thus the question is valid. The answer you gave is purely theological and thus does not belong in the philosophy section; and is therefore invalid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Cause and effect are actually one in the same in my closed loop. You can call it by another name of your choosing.

Did you understand my post? Your answer suggests that you did not. Asserting that cause and effect are the same, does not tell me that you are saying anything meaningful, since it would require me to think that potentiality could actualize itself. Saying that an effect can be its own cause is like saying that a square triangle can exist. The existence of your closed loop is effectively the same as the existence of square triangle. What you are saying is meaningless and contradictory, and therefore irrational, which my previous post went in to great detain and effort to demonstrate. But it seems that such efforts were painfully wasted on you. Makes me wonder why i bother.

Peace.

 

[tonyrey]

Self refuting.

Fred the armadillo existed before any armadillos existed. Hence Fred the armadillo must exist.

rossum

Fred wasn’t the first thing to exist…

 

[rel1]

No I guess I didn’t understand you fully. I apologize for that but please dont think your effort went to waste. Please tell me concisely your views from an idiots perspective. For instance, your idea of infinity, time,space,matter,energy, heory of relativity,biology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics,astronomy,cosmology,quatum mechanics etc… I think a person needs some understanding of the above to make sense of the world we live in and why we are here. What is the cause that started everything?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No I guess I didn’t understand you fully. I apologize for that but please dont think your effort went to waste. Please tell me concisely your views from an idiots perspective. For instance, your idea of infinity, time,space,matter,energy, heory of relativity,biology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics,astronomy,cosmology,quatum mechanics etc… I think a person needs some understanding of the above to make sense of the world we live in and why we are here. What is the cause that started everything?

The above is important, but they are all unique to a specific context of reality. You cannot know what the difference is between possibility and impossibility through science since you need knowledge of such things in-order to interpret scientific data, and you cannot do meaningful science in terms of “truth” without out the belief that logic applies to objective reality. You can know what causes the existence of physical laws without scientific knowledge of what comprises the universe. Asking how the universe began, is not the same question as asking why is there something rather than nothing. Why is there such things as physical laws? Why is there change? These are not a scientific questions and cannot possible be answered by science because science operates within a limited epistemology. You can know that a square triangle cannot exist without knowledge of any science. You can know that you exist, and that you cannot at the same be non-existent. We can achieve true and certain knowledge through other methods of investigation.

You are not excused from reading my original post properly and acknowledging its validity.

 

[JDaniel]

If I cannot know then neither can you.

I realize that what I am about to say to you again is not going to come in line with your beliefs, but, we are told about Angels in the Book of Genesis (at: iii 24 and at: xvi 7 - 10, and again at: xxviii 12,13, to name a few). As the Book of Genesis is rolling out, the Angels were already here.

I suggest you have a look at Multiverse theory, which is also currently scientific.

The use of the word “theory” (together with the word ‘multiverse’) here has nowhere close the force of that word when it is used as a compound noun together with the word “relativity.” Multiverse ‘theory’ is so theoretically weak a ‘theory’ that it is often easily understood to be mere hypothesis. And, as M. O’C. Drury says in, The Danger of Words “A theory can never become a fact. An hypothesis remains an hypothesis to all eternity.”

This current bubble universe is indeed not eternal. I am talking about the overall universe/multiverse, which contains many smaller bubble universes, such as ours.

Rossum: shall you then rest your entire case on a ‘theory’ that has barely the strength of mere hypothesis? The Big Bang theory, which has undergone numerous attempts at falsification, has risen, each time, only to have it be strengthened further. So, you prefer “pure conjecture” (multiverse theory) to “red shift” (Big Bang singular universe theory)? I’d suggest that you take a closer look at multiverse theory. Rather than depicting infinite time, the various models depict finite time and a transcendent cause. Besides, the idea on infinite time for finite structures is beset with its own problems.

I do. Which probably explains some of our differences over a First Cause.

Actually, it doesn’t. From nearly as long as I have been posting on CAF, I have been attempting to correct the idea that the First Cause had only to do with the Big Bang; and for centuries, the Church has never said that First Cause applied only to the Creation event. For all intents and purposes, aligning First Cause solely with the act of Creation is - as much as I hate to say it - a straw man.

St. Thomas 2nd Way: The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. - The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920. (Emphasis mine.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Is anything known truly linear? Try drawing your perceived straight line around the earth and then take a trip to the moon. Is space and light linear? No. Is matter or anything seen in the cosmos linear? No. Can’t everything perceived form a closed loop given enough space? Why can’t it? Why can’t CAUSE and EFFECT? You wouldn’t need a cause to precede an effect in a closed loop. Your thoughts?

Rel1:

If I understand what you are suggesting, you might try to view it in the following way: an efficient cause causes itself which then becomes the efficient cause which causes itself which then becomes the efficient cause which causes itself, ad infinitum. Does this seem reasonable to you? All things that exist just continuously cause themselves? For infinity?

First of all, an “efficient cause” is, by definition, “outside of the loop.” It is extrinsic to the event. The only two causes that are intrinsic to the event are the material cause and the formal cause. Second, an actual infinity of finite things cannot exist. A potential infinity of finite things can exist. But, a potential infinity is, by definition, incomplete. Therefore, it must have a beginning.

Now, if you are envisioning the cause-effect event to start at one point on the earth and finish at another, it would take 25,000 miles for any cause-effect event to occur. Is this reasonable? No. We know this intuitively, empirically and logically.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

In my hypothesis a closed loop or system is cyclicle. Everything in existence evolves and reevolves. Nothing is lost or gained. It generates and regenerates. So why would there have to be anything outside???

Rel:

What is a black hole? In my hypothesis, a black hole is a place where the equilibrium of the universe is restored.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

Fred wasn’t the first thing to exist…

Maybe not, but neither was the First Cause if the First Cause caused causality, as claimed.

We still have the problem of determining “first” in the absence of time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The use of the word “theory” (together with the word ‘multiverse’) here has nowhere close the force of that word when it is used as a compound noun together with the word “relativity.” Multiverse ‘theory’ is so theoretically weak a ‘theory’ that it is often easily understood to be mere hypothesis. And, as M. O’C. Drury says in, The Danger of Words “A theory can never become a fact. An hypothesis remains an hypothesis to all eternity.”

Agreed. The Theory of Gravity will always be a theory, and distinct from the fact of gravity, which it explains. In science in general, and cosmology in particular, we are always going to be talking about theories. The Cosmic Microwave Background is a fact. The Big Bang is a theory which explains that fact, and many others.

Saying that the Multiverse is “just a theory” is not relevant. What is more relevant is the number of facts supporting it. I will grant you that at the moment the number of facts is small.

You quoted Genesis earlier. I can also quote Buddhist scriptures on the nature of the universe and how it fits into a larger structure.

Besides, the idea on infinite time for finite structures is beset with its own problems.

Only if you start with a finite initial value. Starting from 1 I can never reach infinity by adding ones. If I start from (∞ - 10) then it is easy to reach infinity (∞) - I just add one ten times.

If the universe is eternal, then I am always starting at (∞ - x) for some finite x.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…We…

Proof by contradiction is the gold standard of truth accepted by every mathematician, logician and philosopher on the planet. Your silence is a tacit admission that you do not have a refutation of the proof and therefore, as you surely are not irrational and the rules of logic mean something to you, you must agree First Cause is logically necessary and therefore not contingent as the proof demonstrates. Isn’t that right?

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe not, but neither was the First Cause if the First Cause caused causality, as claimed.

We still have the problem of determining “first” in the absence of time.

rossum

“First” in this context means ontological priority. As a Buddhist you must believe that causality is not always physical.

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed. The Theory of Gravity will always be a theory, and distinct from the fact of gravity, which it explains. In science in general, and cosmology in particular, we are always going to be talking about theories. The Cosmic Microwave Background is a fact. The Big Bang is a theory which explains that fact, and many others.

Saying that the Multiverse is “just a theory” is not relevant. What is more relevant is the number of facts supporting it. I will grant you that at the moment the number of facts is small.

You quoted Genesis earlier. I can also quote Buddhist scriptures on the nature of the universe and how it fits into a larger structure.

Only if you start with a finite initial value. Starting from 1 I can never reach infinity by adding ones. If I start from (∞ - 10) then it is easy to reach infinity (∞) - I just add one ten times.

If the universe is eternal, then I am always starting at (∞ - x) for some finite x.

Rossum:

No. If the universe is ‘eternal’ (you mean it as ‘infinity’) there can be no starting point! There can be no point of any kind; that’s the problem. Where does one stop an infinite continuum to jump on board? Nothing finite can do something like that. This isn’t a clever science fiction movie. That one thinks that one can is nothing more than a poorly understood idea of “infinity,” and, perhaps a ‘reification.’!

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

“First” in this context means ontological priority. As a Buddhist you must believe that causality is not always physical.

How do you define “ontological priority” without the use of time or causality?

rossum

 

[rel1]

In an infinite world wouldn’t everything known and unknown also be infinite? In other words wouldn’t there be an infinite number of earths, suns, planets, comets, asteroids, laws of nature, dimensions to all beings and things,etc. Would there be an infinite number of exact duplicates of yourself? Why not? Wouldn"t infinity cancel itself out? I guess I just can’t wrap my finite brain around an infinite universe.

 

[rossum]

No. If the universe is ‘eternal’ (you mean it as ‘infinity’) there can be no starting point!

The universe has no starting point. Neither does the continuum I currently represent. The current I does have a starting point. Remember that with reincarnation “the continuum I currently represent” goes back forever.

rossum