God isn't the First Cause

[Tomdstone]

I am curious to know that if you don’t believe in God as the first cause, what do you propose is the first cause?

The idea of some is that there is no first cause and that the term causality might not apply to the multiverse as a whole.

 

[808Catholic]

The idea of some is that there is no first cause and that the term causality might not apply to the multiverse as a whole.

But what do YOU say is the first cause??? There are many theories out there, possibly as many as there are individuals, but we are guided by our own beliefs. What do you believe?

 

[Tomdstone]

But what do YOU say is the first cause??? There are many theories out there, possibly as many as there are individuals, but we are guided by our own beliefs. What do you believe?

IMHO, God exists, but the question I was responding to was about explaining the first cause. It should be noted that there are those who say that the idea of causality may not apply to the universe as a whole but only to local phenomena.

 

[meltzerboy]

IMHO, God exists, but the question I was responding to was about explaining the first cause. It should be noted that there are those who say that the idea of causality may not apply to the universe as a whole but only to local phenomena.

I believe the idea of a steady state universe with no first cause is one of the older theories but perhaps it has become fashionable again.

 

[808Catholic]

I believe the idea of a steady state universe with no first cause is one of the older theories but perhaps it has become fashionable again.

A steady state universe is not viable in my opinion because we know the universe is constantly changing.

 

[seagal]

I believe the idea of a steady state universe with no first cause is one of the older theories but perhaps it has become fashionable again.

IMO the steady state universe theory is only popular among those who subscribe to the ABG philosophy. (Anything But God).

 

[Tomdstone]

IMO the steady state universe theory is only popular among those who subscribe to the ABG philosophy. (Anything But God).

I don;t know if you can characterize the well known theory of Stephen Hawking as steady state or not. In his theory, space which was thought to be empty is filled with virtual particles which pop in and out of existence according to the laws of quantum mechanics. So the universe arises from these quantum fluctuations which is almost nothing, at least in the classical sense.
But there are other explanations for the universe that do not depend on the notion of first cause. For example, there is the 1998 paper of J. Richard Gott, and Li-Xin Li: Can the Universe Create itself? in which they present a model where closed time-like curves in a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon is stable if the potentials are retarded. They deduce that this model may allow the Universe to be its own mother.
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344v1.pdf

 

[808Catholic]

I don;t know if you can characterize the well known theory of Stephen Hawking as steady state or not. In his theory, space which was thought to be empty is filled with virtual particles which pop in and out of existence according to the laws of quantum mechanics. So the universe arises from these quantum fluctuations which is almost nothing, at least in the classical sense.
But there are other explanations for the universe that do not depend on the notion of first cause. For example, there is the 1998 paper of J. Richard Gott, and Li-Xin Li: Can the Universe Create itself? in which they present a model where closed time-like curves in a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon is stable if the potentials are retarded. They deduce that this model may allow the Universe to be its own mother.
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9712344v1.pdf

That’s a very “sciency” response. Simple question: is the universe eternal? Has it always been? Will it always be?

 

[In_His_Grace]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[DanielJT]

Wait . . .

Nothing can be known to exist outside of your own consciousness

But

Because you have a consciousness, you know something must exist outside of your consciousness

???

I think you have, perhaps, given up the solipsist way of thinking and just don’t know it yet.

 

[Bahman]

God isn’t the first cause. This statement isn’t meant to be argumentative. It’s meant to elicit a reasoned discussion about the nature of God.

Some of this forum’s users may be aware from past discussions that I’m a solipsist. But just to clarify, I’m actually a soft solipsist. Which means that I hold to the position that nothing can be known to exist outside of my own mind. As opposed to a hard solipsist who holds to the position that their mind is without question the only thing that exists. But there’s an interesting correlation between why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist, and why God isn’t the first cause.

Basically the argument boils down to this…consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It requires the existence of coherent patterns of thought, and they require the existence of something in which to form those coherent patterns of thought. Logically, consciousness can’t create the source from which it arises. It can’t be the cause of itself. Therefore consciousness must have emerged from something else. Some underlying source. Even if everything is all in my mind, my mind is dependent for it’s existence on something more primary than itself.

This argument explains one of the reasons as to why I’m a soft solipsist instead of a hard solipsist. But curiously, this argument also applies to God, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being. Consciousness can’t give rise to itself. It must emerge from something which is itself, not conscious.

Therefore, if you’re going to assert that God is a conscious being, then God can’t be the first cause. He can’t cause Himself. There may indeed be a first, uncaused cause, but it’s not conscious. It seems to me therefore, that you’re left with two choices, either God isn’t conscious, or God isn’t the first cause.

You need proper definitions of consciousness and existence.

Consciousness: The essence of any being with the ability to experience and create freely.

Existence: the fundamental mode of experience.

 

[adrift]

You need proper definitions of consciousness and existence.

Consciousness: The essence of any being with the ability to experience and create freely.

Existence: the fundamental mode of experience.

Another definition of consciousness
Immediate awareness of something. It is the internal experience here and now of something either internally or externally present to the perceiver.

Existence
Whatever has reality of its own and not merely in potency or in the powers of its causes. That which really is. The fundamental actuality of any being insofar as it is being; it is the being in act. Thus the act of being, or the act of existence by which a substance or an essence is and not only may or can be. It corresponds to the scholastic term esse, namely that something is, and not merely essentia, or what it is.

 

[Bahman]

Another definition of consciousness
Immediate awareness of something. It is the internal experience here and now of something either internally or externally present to the perceiver.

Then we are faced with the question raised in OP, namely what causes consciousness?

Existence
Whatever has reality of its own and not merely in potency or in the powers of its causes. That which really is. The fundamental actuality of any being insofar as it is being; it is the being in act. Thus the act of being, or the act of existence by which a substance or an essence is and not only may or can be. It corresponds to the scholastic term esse, namely that something is, and not merely essentia, or what it is.

My definition is more proper because we experience things and existence is an abstract concept attached to any single experience we have.

 

[spiderweb]

Existence: the fundamental mode of experience.

This definition would mean that if something doesn’t experience anything, then it doesn’t exist. Not a good definition IMHO.

 

[You]

@op

You have to assume that your version of consciousness within time and matter is the only type of consciousness possible. Its possible that your version of consciousness tied to matter is a reflection within time of a free consciousness without. Theres no reason to think it is bound by your own limitations.

 

[Gorgias]

First, thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far. It’s been helpful. Forgive me however if I don’t respond to each post individually

The reality that you won’t be able to discuss every point made by everyone who responded to you is reasonable; however, [user]fnr[/user] gave you a really nice analysis of the assertions you’d made, and countered each of them. So far, you’ve ignored that analysis (and I hope that this isn’t because it’s difficult to refute his assertions). Would you be willing to re-read fnr’s post, and give us your response to it? It would be interesting to see your reaction to his points…

Thanks!

Which is that I contend that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It’s an attribute that something possesses, but which can’t exist independent of the thing which possesses it. Thus it’s not primary, it’s not the first cause. It’s essentially an effect with an underlying cause.

In a human being? Perhaps. It’s possible that this is a reasonable account of human consciousness.

And if God is a conscious being, then He’s not the first cause either, that from which His consciousness emerges is the true first cause.

As others have mentioned, you’re (unreasonably) extrapolating from your consciousness to God’s. Would you likewise say “since I exist, and my existence began with my physical birth, then since God exists, His existence began with His physical birth”? Of course not; that would be ludicrous. So, too, is the assertion that your consciousness and God’s are identical. In fact, we can generalize and say that the assertion that human (i.e., physical) consciousness and spiritual (e.g., angelic, divine) consciousness are identical is a non-starter. Aquinas, too, talks about the differences between human and divine ‘thought’. Humans ratiocinate; angels (and God) do not. Your assertion seems to be that ratiocination gives rise to consciousness. Aquinas asserts that the ‘intellect’, however, is not a process of ratiocination. Perhaps you’re conflating the notions of ‘consciousness’ and ‘intellect’, and thereby getting yourself tangled in knots?

Let me reiterate, I’m a soft solipsist. I don’t believe that my consciousness is the first cause. Because I believe that consciousness is by its very nature an emergent phenomenon.

“an emergent phenomenon” as applied to humans, and defined by human experience? Sure… you can make that claim. It makes for an interesting argument. But, to assert that it makes the argument both for physical and non-physical beings doesn’t hold water.

As I stated in the beginning, I’m not attempting to be argumentative. I’m attempting to find a rational explanation for why solipsism can’t be true.

[user]fnr[/user] gave a reasonable refutation for your case. It would be enlightening to read your response.

 

[Partinobodycula]

[user]fnr[/user] gave you a really nice analysis of the assertions you’d made, and countered each of them. So far, you’ve ignored that analysis (and I hope that this isn’t because it’s difficult to refute his assertions). Would you be willing to re-read fnr’s post, and give us your response to it? It would be interesting to see your reaction to his points…:

Forgive me for not being as active on this thread as I should be. Excessive silence is a fault of mine. I’m far more at ease in contemplative solitude than I am in open discourse. If it seems as though I’m ignoring anyone, I’m sorry, but that wasn’t my intent. I shall do my best to answer fnr’s arguments, but it may take some time. Feel free to prod me again if necessary.

 

[Bahman]

This definition would mean that if something doesn’t experience anything, then it doesn’t exist. Not a good definition IMHO.

This is a good definition when it is applied to third point of view, namely when something is experienced. That is definition consciousness which relate experience to be.

 

[Cassianus]

God is not consciousness. It’s not possible to define the nature of God as God cant be contained.

 

[Bahman]

This definition would mean that if something doesn’t experience anything, then it doesn’t exist. Not a good definition IMHO.

Could you please give an example of something which cannot experience and cannot be experienced?