I tried giving the theist response to this... and I just couldn't do it.

I have never understood the first cause argument.  Could someone explain it to me?

What I always thought it was is this: if the universe is continually expanding, then it had to have a beggining point, called the big bang.

But if the universe is continually expanding, then all matter and energy will cool.  Becuase of the ridiculously low probability that a universe would be created with even the right physical constants (something like 1x10^300 against life existing.  I believe this is in The God Delusion), then either our universe has to be eternally in a state of contraction and explosion (for infinite time) for life to ever exist.  In essense, in order for a DNA molecule with the necessary characteristics to carry on evolution to inteligent life to form, universes, even with the billions of trillions of potentiol solar systems and planets, must have gone through many contractions and expansions.

The universe is expanding, therefore it is not going to contract.

Therefore life can only exist if someone influences the constants at the beggining of the universe.

Of course, the other option is that there are multiple universes, but most Christians don't even think about this.  Of course, if there are multiple universes, then God's might have evolved through time in them, and influenced the creation of our own universe.  (by influencing the big bang through their supperior technolgy).  If they did so, then they DID create the universe, and they probably even have an interest in our life.  It seems, if life exists at all, then God would probably exist (due to the trillions upon trillions of other universes) .  unless the universe always contracts to a point charge again to be re-created.

I don't know what to think of this argument.  Any thoughts?

That's fine, but it doesn't answer the question in any meaningful way.  If there was a first cause, whether sentient or not, the act of creating the universe might well have been the end of the first cause's existence as such.

Cpt's reply is solid, I think.

It's a good question Hamby, and I admit, you couldn't be certain of a first cause continuing to exist without a good reason that it should. Conservation of energy is a good reason and since we know it we can somewhat dismiss the question, however, I also think that if we didn't have the support of specific observable principle to reason with then it would serve exigence to dismiss the question anyway, while it is necessary to assume that the cause did exist in some form as a cause. In that frame or reference you can exclude the middle and simply say - as a cause, it is or it is not.

So, if that 'first cause' is still in it's orginal form?

I'm not even going to try and guess where you're going with this, so I'll just address the issue:

Unless the 'first cause', somehow integrated itself with the universe, it wouldn't change, but then again entropy laws could apply to it...... So it could go either way.

I take agnostism on the issue. I don't think we can be sure that it's still in it's form. There are too many unkowns. 

Q.E.D.

In other words, there's no outstanding reason to believe anything in particular about the first cause, including whether or not it still exists as the agent of first cause.

So what can you demonstrate about the first cause?

The limit of forms Napoleon can take on this brane is given by the interrelated values of a set of fine constants.for the sake of simplicity lets take the well known and familiar gravitational constant. (about 6.63 *10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2). apparently small changes in this constant would expand, contract or simply exchange the semblance of forms which napoleon can take. assuming relativity is commensurable in a quantum universe via the unifying principles of string theory it follows tas likely that the gravitation constant exists as a solution to the shape of this brane in some ten or more dimensions.

the simple inference from that point is that a change in the constant is equivalent to a change in the shape of the multidimensional brane. If the brane changes form, the limits of napoleons form are no longer the ones which we have ascertained as the course of unchanging physical constants. Napoleon is not walking the earth here and now as a man of short stature and big dreams - thus we can safely assume the shape of the brane has not changed in any dramatic way.

Now if the ten dimensional branes are the substance of the first cause we can safely say that they on the whole do not change form dramatically, at least one physical constant is corollary to the constancy of their intrinsic shape - quite probably the multiverse has a constancy of shape which is demonstrated by the gravitational constant.

So I can say if the The multiverse was first cause it did not annihilate itself on banging us into existence, if it had, we could not exist because at least one demostrable constant (related to its shape) would not be here to allow our existence.

Eloise, if your demonstration is valid, you've demonstrated a property of one possible first cause.  We've already established that we cannot know anything about pre-big bang.  Therefore, we cannot know that this possible first cause is the first cause.  Therefore, you have not really demonstrated anything noteworthy.  You've simply mentioned a property of one out of a practically infinite number of equally possible first causes.  This is practically the same as not saying anything.

That is not true Hamby. The demonstration is of a necessary property of a specific and reasonably supported first cause.

your vacuum insinuation is ad ignoratium.

edit: The ignorance is in the statement :

"we cannot know anything about pre-big bang"

Brane cosmology is a pre-big bang theory which supposes the multiverse as the pre big bang condition. A solution one step back from there to the first cause of he multiverse is dependent on the laws that define the multiverse system, the laws which define the big bang are consistent with our universe, not the multiverse, so Like God, the multiverse quantum tunnels out of infinite regression by not being subject to the same laws.

edit 2: So the substance of what I am saying, at risk of sounding redundant is that a: I have strong reason to believe that the first cause of this universe necessarily still exists in some form (conservation of energy) and b: I also have very good reason to believe that it necessarily has constancy of form. (physical constants as solutions to equations of form in ten dimensions).

Doesn't this fall to the definition of the word universe though? If we take it mean "all that exists" then in context of the of the multiverse it would include all universes that exist. So then the idea of first cause is pushed back to whatever the first cause might be for the multiverse system.

Yes, but that also requires defining 'first' in terms of the multiverse, which translates in our terms to some altogether different concept. 

How ironic that I should find myself in your opposition. The first cause paradox, as you know, goes like this. We observe causality in the universe, and causality requires time by definition, and therefore we assumed that the universe always existed and the idea of the universe being caused presents an internal contradiction because time is the necessary substrate of cause. But empirical evidence has mounted overwhelmingly in favour of the universe having had a point of beginning. This ireally problematic, because it begs the question of what physicists call the "time before time". This is the time before time paradox. Some theists think they can solve it by invoking this vague and meaningless theological entity, like Aquinas did, who was later defended from the apparant paradox of "cause of cause" by this ridiculous notion of "simultaneous causation" by apologists. These people are idiots. That notion would present us with a contradiction in terms.

In the Multiverse proposition, we effectively return to some degree the idea that the universe is an eternal entity, so whilst each individual universe can be viewed as a a finite entity, the proposition explicitly requires (as in, the equations would break down without it) that the whole system have no cause or end. Time is a function of each individual universe as an indepedent entity, not of the multiverse as a whole (this is obvious from the point of Relativistic Kinematics).

If I understand this correctly, we are still left with the first cause argument failing from either the time paradox or the simple observation that it is not actually a first cause at all.  I suppose we can say that there is a first cause of our universe, but I admit I'm baffled by the claim that IF a first cause exists, THEN it must still exist.

Don't do that Hamby, I have in no way been dishonest, remember the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first cause argument is soluble under the multiverse theory, there is notthing vaguely theological about that statement and it's not dishonest. That first cause falls into a time paradox and that this bears similarities to a theological position is not a dishonest statement either.   

This is fine with me, Hamby. I have no vested interest in the first cause argument. I have given my response to the OP re: what cause one might have for believing a first cause of this universe would still exist, beyond that I have very little interest in this topic anyway except to agree with the rest your position.

ummm. I'm not using the dash notation for division I'm using it for multiplication. I mea, that is, it's not dash notation it's dot notation. :S

Well, now we are getting into quite a ridiculous and pedantic argument, but I am pretty sure that G is supposed to be written like this:

6.67x10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2

Where the -1 and -2 indicate divisors. ms-2 indicates m/s/s, acceleration. My only point was that you put a ^ to indicate s-2 so it became s^-2. That implies to the power of -2, which is the same as (1/s^2) which is meaningless.

Please don't propose the multiverse as a sentient "infinite consciousness."  I'll only ignore it.

I could demonstrate how the definition of man in the metaphysical context of 'no isolated systems' implies an existing counterpart sentience in the context of a multiverse system; It justifies contingent belief in a sentient god-like multidimensional being but it's unlikely to address the first cause argument directly in the manner you'd like, so I won't derail your thread again.

Why don't you have a Nobel Prize?

That's not a flippant question.  I fully admit that I can't argue theoretical physics sufficiently enough to do justice to your claim.  However, direct evidence of the likelihood of god or even just a lowly multidimensional being would send shock waves through all of the sciences.  Why are you blogging here when you should be publishing your proof in science journals?

God the self proclaimed potentate of all that is proudly surveyed his jurisdiction.

His dominion was perfect, an invariable, ageless and infinite stretch of equality where any position was the counterpart of every other. For he had commanded it so,

"My realm shall have no borders and no centre it will have a perfect symmetry across all dimensions. Every point will seem to be nothing and nothing could be everything".

But almost as soon as the task was complete ripples could be discerned. These undulant anomalies appeared to move in mirrored circular waves before terminating. Is this to be construed as nothing poking out its tongue and giving it a wiggle? Like a snake in the grass?

 God now displeased at this irregularity irately asserted

"But I created nothing!"

The topography grew wild as now with great fever things briefly came into existance in pairs, triplets then even groups as if exploring the viscissitudes of the domain. As the tempo mounted artifacts became isolated from their equal and opposite sets and their existence prolonged.

A cry of fury from the designer of nonentity "You broke it!"

To which the universe as a whole related

"nothing is broken".

Don't be confused.  The first statement was aimed at the general public.  The second was aimed at you.

I don't know why atheists demand a science journal entry of God. It's not like I can set up an experiment and conclude 'Yep, that's God.'

I already explained my position in regards to science and God, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but only say that it's unreasonable to demand the science reports whereas by doing so you are missing the enitre point.

That's a false comparision between my view and Elvis martian.

One is an interpetation of available data from quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

The other is pulled out of the ass.

I'll let you decide which one is which.