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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The difference between mine

The difference between mine and say ESP and such is that mine is actually falsafiable and open to revision, as is digital physics, and I can think of several different ways to make it falsafiable.

 

I created a topic about that, and I'll look over it again. I'm pretty sure you complained about how I brought in the multiverse(which in of it self can be confirmed).

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
ESP and telekinesis are

ESP and telekinesis are testable. I spent many hours staring at an aluminum pinwheel balanced on a needle in a sealed jar during my misspent youth. "Move... move... move... MOVE!!! No, no, no, don't try to force it... just be the thing... be one with the thing... did it move?! Nope... Move... move... imagine the atoms, use misunderstanding of quantum physics to visualize... create impulse for it to move... move... move... I wonder what's on TV..."

Moving on...  am I mistaken in thinking the original argument relates to the sort of prime mover argument formulated by Aquinas, as referenced in The God Delusion? That is, there must be a first cause to end regress, and we call it 'god?' That is, even if there were an end to regress, what reason do we have to assume properties like sentience -- or even, as you point out, continuing relevance?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

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.

That's perfectly fair. Truth be known, the only one doing any suppressing here is me. I am just a girl, I dropped out to take care of my three kids and 82 year old grandma better, and because it felt right to do so, thus I'm not affiliated or associated or honoured in any order. And it is entirely utterly and deliberately my fault. 

 As for my work, you have every right not to believe me, but here's how it is. I have never submitted anything to anyone. Not because I don't intend to, but because the mass of what I have to sumbit at the moment is a bunch of good simple inferences and a bit of supporting argument, loosely organised and skeletal in substance. It's good, but it needs the weight of the great unfinished proof (which is a set of equations that I don't work on nearly enough as I probably "should&quotEye-wink or it's nothing more than some supportable ideas, lightweight easy conclusions that I've always been sure most could come to themselves. it doesn't seem that great to me, honestly.

 

Quote:

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.

Well from my perspective I'm not fighting to defend implausible ideas, but to crush implausible ideas under the weight of, what I think are, better ones. I claim a neutral ground, if the best ideas I could come up with invalidated all possibility of a spiritual being, don't mistake it, I'd argue that. I genuinely believe that this day and age calls for serious discourse in the general community to put an end to dangerous and unhealthy superstition. Even more than I'd ever care about getting a laurel, IF I have any chance of that which remains to be seen.   

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: ESP and

magilum wrote:

ESP and telekinesis are testable. I spent many hours staring at an aluminum pinwheel balanced on a needle in a sealed jar during my misspent youth. "Move... move... move... MOVE!!! No, no, no, don't try to force it... just be the thing... be one with the thing... did it move?! Nope... Move... move... imagine the atoms, use misunderstanding of quantum physics to visualize... create impulse for it to move... move... move... I wonder what's on TV..."

Moving on... am I mistaken in thinking the original argument relates to the sort of prime mover argument formulated by Aquinas, as referenced in The God Delusion? That is, there must be a first cause to end regress, and we call it 'god?' That is, even if there were an end to regress, what reason do we have to assume properties like sentience -- or even, as you point out, continuing relevance?

 

But one should remember, I am not making a science claim, I am making a claim based on science.

 

I admit the claim itself is not testable, however the base of it is. Falsify the science of which it's based, and the claim collapses  


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

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
magilum wrote:

ESP and telekinesis are testable. I spent many hours staring at an aluminum pinwheel balanced on a needle in a sealed jar during my misspent youth. "Move... move... move... MOVE!!! No, no, no, don't try to force it... just be the thing... be one with the thing... did it move?! Nope... Move... move... imagine the atoms, use misunderstanding of quantum physics to visualize... create impulse for it to move... move... move... I wonder what's on TV..."

Moving on... am I mistaken in thinking the original argument relates to the sort of prime mover argument formulated by Aquinas, as referenced in The God Delusion? That is, there must be a first cause to end regress, and we call it 'god?' That is, even if there were an end to regress, what reason do we have to assume properties like sentience -- or even, as you point out, continuing relevance?

 

But one should remember, I am not making a science claim, I am making a claim based on science.

 

I admit the claim itself is not testable, however the base of it is. Falsify the science of which it's based, and the claim collapses  

I wasn't addressing your thesis just then, but clarifying the intent of the question for myself (which makes me look redundant, but it's better than missing the point).

To your claim I would only wonder why the study of physics creates a proclivity for pantheism and deism. Have I merely, in my hugger mugger existence as a graphic designer and filmmaker, been deprived of all the breathless awe I'm owed by the cosmos?

I want my awe.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I want my

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

I've read this book and have a copy. Its very good, but it is about something completely different. Its about evolutionary biology and molecular biology, which is why I enjoyed it so much. We aren't debating evolution here, I don't think anyone in the room is that stupid... 

 

"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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

I've read this book and have a copy. Its very good, but it is about something completely different. Its about evolutionary biology and molecular biology, which is why I enjoyed it so much. We aren't debating evolution here, I don't think anyone in the room is that stupid...

 

 

I didn't recommend it for the evolution, I did it for the Theistic part of it.

 

I'm currently reading it, but it may take me a while to finish. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: God the

Cernunnos wrote:

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".

 

rockin' prose, cernunnos.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com