First Cause -- a simple question

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
First Cause -- a simple question

If, for the sake of argument, we grant the validity of the argument that the universe must have a first cause, it prompts a very important question. How do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? Perhaps the first cause, in creating the universe, extinguished itself.

 

[Edit: I must rephrase this question slightly, as it has been correctly pointed out that IF the multiverse is the cause of the universe, THEN the multiverse must still exist. Please read the question as: Assuming the first cause to be some form of sentient being, how do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.]

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I tried giving the theist

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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(crickets chirping)

(crickets chirping)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I have never understood the

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?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
It may be that I'm a glutton

It may be that I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'll wager a guess that conservation laws hold. That the 'first cause' still exists in one form or another.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It may be that I'm a

Quote:
It may be that I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'll wager a guess that conservation laws hold. That the 'first cause' still exists in one form or another.

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.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have never

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

First cause assumes infinite regress to be impossible.  In other words, even if we go back to the big bang, something had to cause the big bang.  Before that, something had to cause the cause of the big bang.  In theory, this could go on forever -- infinitely.  However, infinite is not really possible.  It's just a mathematical abstract, not a physical reality.  Therefore, something has to have been the termination of the chain of causation.  Therefore, there is a first cause.

  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.


Quote:
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.

I think you're not understanding Dawkins correctly.  Later on in that chapter, he explained the flaws in that kind of probabilistic model.

 

Quote:
If they did so, then they DID create the universe, and they probably even have an interest in our life.

First cause does not have to equal god.  That's part of my point.  First cause is only first cause.  It could literally be anything, since we don't know anything about before the big bang, and we have no knowledge of any other universes.

If first cause doesn't lead to god, then we certainly can't make a leap to god having an interest in our life.

 

Quote:
It seems, if life exists at all, then God would probably exist (due to the trillions upon trillions of other universes) .

This doesn't follow at all.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt's reply is solid, I

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.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's a good question

Quote:
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.

Um... so in other words, you can't demonstrate that the first cause still exists in the form of first cause, only in some from, much as Napoleon still exists as tap water.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So, if that 'first cause'

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. 

 

 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: First

Hambydammit wrote:

First cause does not have to equal god. That's part of my point. First cause is only first cause. It could literally be anything, since we don't know anything about before the big bang, and we have no knowledge of any other universes.

If first cause doesn't lead to god, then we certainly can't make a leap to god having an interest in our life.

I agree, Hamby, and I don't think you can make that position tenable either, IMO  first cause is not a meaningful argument for God.


Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't think we can

Quote:
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.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
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.

Um... so in other words, you can't demonstrate that the first cause still exists in the form of first cause, only in some from, much as Napoleon still exists as tap water.

 

Now you're doing the leaping Hamby. LOL.

I didn't say anything about the limits of what I can demonstrate re: the present existence of first cause, (but since you're asking demonstrating that Napoleon exists as tap-water is a good half of the story.) I was only commenting on the validity of one thing which can be demonstrated. Nothing in my statement goes to what I cannot demonstrate.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
So what can you demonstrate

So what can you demonstrate about the first cause?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I know it is a pretty

I know it is a pretty whacky idea but ....

 

What if some intelligent species is living at the end of the universe (as in it is about to go cold and dim) and has the technology to kickstart a new universe. So they do this and seed it with life. Unknowingly to them the creation of the new universe is actually their same universe but at the beginning of time. So you have a circular state.

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

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.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
UltraMonk wrote: I know it

UltraMonk wrote:

I know it is a pretty whacky idea but ....

 

What if some intelligent species is living at the end of the universe (as in it is about to go cold and dim) and has the technology to kickstart a new universe. So they do this and seed it with life. Unknowingly to them the creation of the new universe is actually their same universe but at the beginning of time. So you have a circular state.

Right, that was essensially my argument.  That being would, for almost all practical purposes, be a God. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Eloise, if your

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.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Like I said in my other

Like I said in my other topic, all we can do is wonder and base it on current scientific knowledge. We can use GUT theories, WMAP data etc....

But the best we can do is come up with something and claim agnostism. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

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).

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Like

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Like I said in my other topic, all we can do is wonder and base it on current scientific knowledge. We can use GUT theories, WMAP data etc....

But the best we can do is come up with something and claim agnostism. 

To a pre-Big Bang existence I'd agree, to gods is begging the question. 


Ivan Fyodorovic...
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't this fall to the

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.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Doesn't this fall to

Quote:
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, it would push the first cause argument back.  However, I think theists would simply redefine god as the first cause of "this universe" and claim that if he's god for this universe, then he's effectively the god that everyone's been trying to prove.

Even so, your point is very well taken.  Invoking the multiverse solves nothing with regard to the first cause argument.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov

Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov wrote:
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. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: about 6.63 *10^-11

Quote:

about 6.63 *10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2)

This is incredibly pedantic, but my only critique of your proposition (the parameters are very theoretical and anyway Hamby is arguing about something wholly different to you) is your use of units. If you are going to use the "dash" notation instead of a / for divisors, never put ^ signs in, because that means "to the power of". If I write the units of acceleration, I can choose to write it as m/s/s or ms-2, not ms^-2. The gravitational constant is about 6.63 x 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram per second per second. By the above notation, it would read that the gravitational constant is  6.63 x10^-11 cubic meters per the reciprocal of mass in kg per the reciprocal of time squared, which is meaningless.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Invoking the

Quote:

Invoking the multiverse solves nothing with regard to the first cause argument.

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).

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Yes, but that also

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

I recognize that this was in response to someone else, but I think it illustrates that we are talking about different topics. If we're going to talk about your first cause in a multiverse setting, we're talking about an entirely different paradigm than the one in which the first cause argument is phrased.

As I pointed out before, I'm not really interested in dealing with an existent being in another part of the (theoretical) multiverse because, as you accurately point out, it's not going to end well with our definition of time as it relates to the known universe. Furthermore, it doesn't really address the first cause argument in any meaningful way.

Mixing theological vaguery such as the straight line logic of a first cause with the language of theoretical physics, where time is anything but linear, is not just unproductive, it's dishonest.

If you want to talk about multiverses and the cause of "cause," you're going to have to do it with deludedgod. I'm addressing the philosophical problems with the first cause argument, and unless I'm missing something really important, I don't see a connection with your proposed multiverse entity.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: In the Multiverse

Quote:
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.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Then we are at no

Then we are at no disagreement. Theistic propositions make no sense whatsoever.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

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

I recognize that this was in response to someone else, but I think it illustrates that we are talking about different topics. If we're going to talk about your first cause in a multiverse setting, we're talking about an entirely different paradigm than the one in which the first cause argument is phrased.

As I pointed out before, I'm not really interested in dealing with an existent being in another part of the (theoretical) multiverse because, as you accurately point out, it's not going to end well with our definition of time as it relates to the known universe. Furthermore, it doesn't really address the first cause argument in any meaningful way.

Mixing theological vaguery such as the straight line logic of a first cause with the language of theoretical physics, where time is anything but linear, is not just unproductive, it's dishonest.

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.   

Quote:
 

If you want to talk about multiverses and the cause of "cause," you're going to have to do it with deludedgod. I'm addressing the philosophical problems with the first cause argument, and unless I'm missing something really important, I don't see a connection with your proposed multiverse entity.

 

 

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. Smiling

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Bah, proofing is

Bah, proofing is important...

Quote:
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, I misread this the first time. Disregard the previous post. I suppose we can say that the original question I asked is answered IF the multiverse caused the universe, but it doesn't really address the underlying point. Granting the existence of a first cause, we are left without any way to make a leap to knowing anything about a "god" with the First Cause argument.

 [edit: I will rephrase the OP to allow for your correction, which I understand and appreciate.]

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

about 6.63 *10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2)

This is incredibly pedantic, but my only critique of your proposition (the parameters are very theoretical and anyway Hamby is arguing about something wholly different to you) is your use of units. If you are going to use the "dash" notation instead of a / for divisors, never put ^ signs in, because that means "to the power of". If I write the units of acceleration, I can choose to write it as m/s/s or ms-2, not ms^-2. The gravitational constant is about 6.63 x 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram per second per second. By the above notation, it would read that the gravitational constant is 6.63 x10^-11 cubic meters per the reciprocal of mass in kg per the reciprocal of time squared, which is meaningless.

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

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't know why, but this

I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of the quotes:

 

 

 

 'God does not play dice with the universe'~Albert Einstein

  'Stop telling God what to do.' ~ Niels Bohr


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, now we are getting

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.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't know why,

Quote:

I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of the quotes:

 

 

 

 'God does not play dice with the universe'~Albert Einstein

  'Stop telling God what to do.' ~ Niels Bohr

I don't know why either.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Well,

deludedgod wrote:

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.

 

 

 


 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:

I don't know why, but this thread reminds me of the quotes:

 

 

 

'God does not play dice with the universe'~Albert Einstein

'Stop telling God what to do.' ~ Niels Bohr

I don't know why either.

 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty weird.

 

 

Anyway, I'm working on a response to:

 

Quote:

[Edit: I must rephrase this question slightly, as it has been correctly pointed out that IF the multiverse is the cause of the universe, THEN the multiverse must still exist. Please read the question as: Assuming the first cause to be some form of sentient being, how do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.]

 

It should be up tomorrow. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Please don't propose the

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

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

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.

 

LOL, yeah it's getting a bit nuts. m/s/s and m*s^(-2) are mathematically equivalent: m/s/s = m/s*1/s = m*1/(s^2) = m*s^(-2) ; but as for it being meaningful, are you referring to a tranlation of the terms under certain definitions of time?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.]

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.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yes. When I first read it,

Yes. When I first read it, it seemed to me as "divide over the reciprocal of the square of s" which, of course, would simply be the reciprocal of the reciprocal, which is itself (ff '(x)=x). Sorry for the confusion. Its just the way I write.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It justifies

Quote:
It justifies contingent belief in a sentient god-like multidimensional being

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?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Why

Hambydammit wrote:

Why are you blogging here when you should be publishing your proof in science journals?

 

Err, the answer to that is um.. I don't really know, doing this helps me to fill the missing pieces in the formal version somehow. I like this platform, it works for me, and in all seriousness it doesn't matter to me how my ideas are recognised I mean yeah eventually, formality, but in the big picture how urgent is that to me, meh. Okay, I'm weird, basically, I have strange ideas and a lot of what I am saying goes to support churches when I'd rather be on your side, does that make any sense? 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
God the self proclaimed

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".

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, now I'm

Okay, now I'm confused.

 

On one hand you say: 

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.

 

 

On the other: 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

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

 

 

I know the first quote isn't specifically directed at me, but to answer it I would have to first propose that the multiverse is sentient.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Don't be confused.  The

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

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Err, the answer to

Quote:
Err, the answer to that is um.. I don't really know, doing this helps me to fill the missing pieces in the formal version somehow.

Well, here's the thing.  I'm a philosopher and a history buff, not a theoretical physicist.  I can grasp the descriptions of most of the concepts in cosmology, but the mathematics are lost on me.  I can only rely on people who do know cosmology, and to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single accepted peer reviewed theory which demonstrates contingent belief in any form of consciousness above that which we observe in discreet replicating organisms.  Additionally, I am not aware of a single accepted peer reviewed theory proposing any other form of consciousness.

That leaves me with a choice.  I can either believe the girl who blogs about being able to prove contingent belief, or I can believe the complete lack of any peer reviewed papers proving it.

If I believe you, I might as well believe in perpetual motion machines, too.  Lots of internet bloggers claim to have the secret, and they all can come up with perfectly reasonable explanations for why their miraculous breakthrough is being suppressed or ignored by the scientific community.

So, while I understand that you firmly believe in the accuracy of your belief, I have to take the complete lack of corroboration from the scientific community as a stronger argument.

 

Quote:
I like this platform, it works for me, and in all seriousness it doesn't matter to me how my ideas are recognised I mean yeah eventually, formality, but in the big picture how urgent is that to me, meh.

I'm not kidding about this.  If you prove contingent belief, I want you to thank me at the award ceremony.  Not because I've helped, but I just want to be mentioned at what could only be described as the single most important moment in the history of science.  I'm vain that way.

 

Quote:
Okay, I'm weird, basically, I have strange ideas and a lot of what I am saying goes to support churches when I'd rather be on your side, does that make any sense?

Not really.   I agree that you have strange ideas, and I sense that you have a lot of animosity towards organized religion, but I've always been puzzled by the difficulty you have with the incoherence of god claims.  I guess I don't understand why you fight so hard to retain such implausible ideas when you'd rather be on our side.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't know why atheists

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.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't know why

Quote:

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.

I'll throttle the dead horse you just trotted out.  If you enjoy speculating about Elvis's Martian lovechild skiing on the slopes of Uranus, that's fine with me.  I'll give that speculation exactly as much consideration as your god theory, and when I'm done, I'll be in the clear, philosophically and logically.

Until the next time that you acknowledge the complete philosophical uselessness of your position, fare thee well.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:

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.

I'll throttle the dead horse you just trotted out. If you enjoy speculating about Elvis's Martian lovechild skiing on the slopes of Uranus, that's fine with me. I'll give that speculation exactly as much consideration as your god theory, and when I'm done, I'll be in the clear, philosophically and logically.

Until the next time that you acknowledge the complete philosophical uselessness of your position, fare thee well.

 

 

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. 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: That's a false

Quote:

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

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

You don't appreciate the two things I'm comparing, but it doesn't make them less valid.  Both Elvis and IC are unsupported by falsifiable evidence.  I'll admit that IC does have more science words in it, and it probably belongs with other pseudo-science theories, like Gaia and ESP.

Granting you that the Martian is somewhat different in kind, as it contains no science words, I will revise my estimation of your theory.  It is at least scientific sounding enough for James Randi to ridicule it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism