Is “first cause”. Obviously true?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by ARDY, Dec 31, 2019.

  1. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,679
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you mean "cause" as in a creator? I'm struggling with the idea that something could happen randomly.
     
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, reality isn't bound by our ability to understand it. Particle-antiparticle pairs do happen, spontaneity seems to be present in the universe.

    This doesn't technically mean that there can't be a creator, just that one of our best arguments to think that there is a creator isn't fully water proof.
     
  3. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,679
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's true what you say about our ability to understand things. Yet I do struggle with the idea of no cause even though I know that it's a possibility.

    I can't argue if there is or isn't a creator. I don't buy the concept of some being with super powers, especially one so human. But what do I know?

    And then there is this concept of time that boxes us in and forces us to see things happening in a linear progression, demanding there be a cause for every action. Confusing, but incredibly fascinating at the same time.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  4. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Our perspective is limited within a few levels of reach. We cannot concretely know what is beyond the reach of our perspective. We can neither affirm nor deny an FM or a hierarchy of levels beyond the existence of our universe with any claim of certainty except through intuitive conviction, a knowing that is personal and based on belief, spiritual inspiration, or effects of an altered state of consciousness (e.g. via huayawasca).

    Most of those who have psychically explored the multiverse have not been able to determine what might be at the origin of the hierarchy. It is beyond their perspective. The only one that I know of who seems to have given a plausible, explicit account of penetrating into the domain of the Creator is "Ambassador Szot."

    However, there does seem to exist an "exit plan" for those who "get it" after experiencing enough multiple lives in the trials and tribulations of "God's kindergarten."

    (The electron microscope provides a view of atoms)
    Right, there's objective physical reality and subjective reality. The former is an arrangement that abides by the rule set (physical laws) and is probably a virtual reality. Thus it is said that there are no particles at the subjective level. Reality is what is reformed from one microsecond to the next according to available probabilities.

    The hard-liners don't like the idea that a being or decision-making process is implied by "subjective," preferring instead determinant/indeterminant.

    Bottom line: Energy, matter (a condensed form of energy), and consciousness is all that there is.

    Considering the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, most of which is undetectable by our senses, and the mysteries of extra dimensions, consciousness, energy, and gravity etc., it is indeed strange.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is, as you well example, possible to frame a context, to suit a pretext, to hide a subtext. It is just as likely that one could frame a context, to suit a pretext to discredit a subtext. I submit that attributing abstraction to cause is nonsense. It not only negates its counter argument in this polemic; it negates any polemic.

    The idea that there is no such thing as a cause/effect sequence because cause is merely an abstraction is an idea that is easily disprovable. If you want to try an experiment, gather a hammer and expose a testicle, then ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  6. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously, I don't argue that there is no such thing as cause and effect. If I throw a tomato at the wall and the wall becomes red with tomato, there is definitely a causal relationship between those two notions. However, when we identify causes, there is an issue of delimiting the cause. If we ever find ourselves unable to put our finger on whether something has a cause, we can call the idea that something is allowed to not have a cause a cause in itself. There are areas of extreme abstraction when cause and effect becomes a bit meaningless. That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that humans putting words to it won't capture anything fundamental about reality.
     
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. The ultimate abstraction is the idea of chance. Chance is what man calls the cause and effect sequence beyond the point we can follow it. I don't believe in chance for many of the reasons that you outline above. "Chance" is a name we give to our ignorance.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I strongly suspect your name for cause which we can't readily identify is "god did it".

    And, THAT is the ultimate abstracion. Chance is measurable. A god that can do literally anything is not even measurable. Plus, "god did it" may be invoked with ZERO justification.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2020
  9. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Christians don't argue that God had a beginning. And you don't need an explanation for an explanation. If we find a dirt mound containing arrowheads and tools, it is logical to assume than men made them, without knowing anything about them or where they came from.
     
  10. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A better answer than 'nothingdidit', and that nothing X nobody = everything.
     
  11. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Non-life becoming life, unaided, isn't special pleading?
     
  12. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "God" works only to an extent. It's not a defendable term in my estimation. What I can defend, is an efficient cause. I can defend the existence of both contingent being and necessary being. In fact, it's only because I cannot honestly and logically deny that contingent being exists that I am left to believe that necessary being must exist.

    Let me rephrase myself. I don't believe in necessary being because I can find in necessary being a particular "God".
    I believe in a particular God because I can find in that God a necessary being. You see, I'm not looking for a "God"; I'm looking for necessary being. If necessary being is called "God", so be it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2020
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no. As we don't know how life began. Science admits this. Religion does not.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that is needed is a vast supply of energy.

    Suggesting that there must be sentience is an extra that I just don't see as being necessary.

    You seem to want to suggest that a senient being would be necessary to provide that energy. But, that's just adding another requirement - that of sentience. I don't see a justification for adding that additional requirement.

    I don't really believe it matters, though. If you want to believe that your god created the big bang, fine. At least that doesn't suggest that our methods of science along with the progress made by that method is garbage.

    However, if you want to start attributing other aspects of our physical universe and the events and processes within it to a god that is playing around with how things work, then I do object. Genesis states that we are able to figure out how this universe works. And that isn't compatible with the notion that a god has been tweaking what we see.
     
  15. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No effect can transcend its cause. I am a person. My cause, even my efficient cause, must therefore be, at least, personal.
     
  16. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't know, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table?
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has nothing to do with you.

    The only requirement is stupdendous amounts of energy. That's the one and only requirement that can't be denied.

    You are just adding another requirement - a requirement I don't see any justification for adding. There is no reason for requiring an active consciousness. It's just not necessary.

    If you want to add more requirements you need to describe how they were supplied and why they are an absolute requirement.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, as it's not falsifiable. That excludes it from the scientific method.
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't seen anyone on this board argue that "before" the big bang there was nothing.
     

Share This Page