Is “first cause”. Obviously true?

And it has now been found that in "empty space" particles suddenly, seemingly spontaneously, spring into being and then are immediately "cancelled" by other forces (anti-matter?). But not all are so terminated. A few survive (if I have the story right).

This may have relevance to "the Big Bang" and the beginning of this universe.

 

Yes, I had heard that
Which is just another example of how “reality” does not correspond to our ideas about what is common sense. And once we stop insisting that “the beginning of the universe” must conform to our ideas about common sense... then what we are left with is the fact that we simply do not know how the universe started, and however it all started is probably in some way that we would think to be weird and unlikely.

 

The only known surviving ones (at least back when I studied particle physics) are on the edge of a black hole (one particle goes to cancel a particle inside the black hole instead, slowly "boiling" the black hole away, and the other flies away, and can be detected as Hawking radiation).

But yes, it shows that there is spontaneity in the universe. If we could examine this under conditions like the start of the universe (for instance, how does spontaneity behave when there is no such concept as time? How should we think about cancellation when there is no concept of space?) there may be an explanation to the universe there. Too much is uncertain though.

Not really a response to your post, just wanted to write a bit.

 

The first cause argument is bogus to begin with. A believer simply has to argue that creation itself is a manifestation of the power of God; and thus, there is no need for a cause.

 

My one enduring belief is that the Big Bang was just one in a series of such "beginnings" going back infinitely. IOW, everything happens in cycles, including the origin of the universe.

 

Thanks. I enjoy the chat. But I have a problem with the idea of there ever being no time. The question. itself, seems to negate the possibility. I mean, what happened that started time? See? That implies a change prior to the emergence of time, ...which requires time to pass!! Or, when was there no time and how long did it take for time to emerge? See? There it is again.

I once heard that prior to the B.B. when there was nothing in existence, there was no space and no time passing. But as soon as there were two particles, their existence created space (the distance between them) and time (how fast they were moving).

I guess it depends how we define "space and time".

 

If first cause is not true then dead matter is eternal and is far superior to humankind.

 

Yeah, humans are good at normal space and time, not so good at the non-normal stuff. We can deal with some distortion, we kinda understand time running slow or fast (it's basically like a clock running slow or fast) but anything other than that is very hard.

But then again, it isn't a problem that there are things we don't understand. In this case, it potentially opens a way to think about spontaneous generation of the universe, but it is far from obvious, so we have little choice but to settle for the brain-teasing soundbite.

 

Yes that is a possibility

embedded In the first cause argument is the idea that EVERYTHING has a “cause”. So if you want to have a cause without a cause... by inference, that could be called be GOD. But, as you point out, it is also possible that there is no first cause.... that events extend repetitiously for infinity.... although, smile, it is not clear how that might work since our concepts Of space and time apparently came into existence in the context of what we call the Big Bang.

if there is some reality out side our universe, we simply do not have words or concepts to meaningful discuss that reality. We could label this primal and reality as “god”, but the only way we can talk about god is to anthropomorphize him... so, in the end, this primal “god” simply is our creation.... we use our words, our concepts... to talk about something that we know nothing about: the nature of reality outside our universe.

 

If God is the only Reality, then all of creation is a manifestation of Him. To know Him is to know ourselves. Ergo, no need to anthropomoorphize Him.

 

We do not start out in the position of ‘“knowing him”
And I would point out that the inverse of you logic does not hold....
Which is to say:, to know ourselves is not to know god
..l even presuming that we had the capability to know ourselves

 

God is the Pure. Since humans have been conditioned for eons in respect to how they think and perceive the world, in order to know the Pure, one must know himself in the unconditioned form.

 

If you say so

 

Are you saying that humans have not been conditioned for eons in respect to how they think and perceive the world?

 

Nope

 

Then why do they generally react to the same things (mentally speaking) in regards to their overall condition, and/or outside stimuli?

 

Sorry, not sure what you are saying, or how what you are saying relates to anything I have said

 

Maybe the following example will help elucidate the point: If, as you say, humans have not been conditioned to think and perceive a certain way, then why is a man full of joy when he finds a lump of gold on the ground?

 

Dont think i ever said that

 

I don't believe that everything has a cause. Particle-antiparticle pairs can pop into existence and disappear in a time period consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. There is no known cause for this.

Radioactive decay for a single atom appears to be entirely random an without a cause. This derives from the wave nature of particles not having a particular energy level at any given time. At some

random time an alpha particle may acquire enough kinetic energy to penetrate its binding potential energy and escape the nucleus. So, quantum mechanics seems to violate strict causality.

 

If something happens randomly,
Then (within the framework of our usual thought process) there is no known cause. And, let’s be clear... the “first cause” argument is entirely reliant on the application of common sense logic within the framework of our usual thought processes.

Basically, the first cause argument proposes that since we have no more convincing rationale for the initiation of the Big Bang.... let’s label that as god. But even IF there were a “god” who initiated the Big Bang, the first cause argument tells us absolutely nothing about that entity.

let’s suppose the ants in a toy ant farm were discussing whether they lived in a world created for them by a “first cause”..... and let’s agree that in the case of a toy ant farm.... the ants arguments from first cause would be correct (you are the first cause of their world). Never the less, even though the ants correctly deduced the existence of a first cause for their world.... they cannot know anything about that first cause (the first cause being YOU, the “creator” and first cause of the toy ant farm)

likewise, even if we are correct in the first cause argument....this remarkable insight carries with it no further information about the nature of the first cause. The first cause argument in no way validates the proposition that the Bible was delivered to us by the first cause of the universe.... who selected the Jews as his chosen people.... and when he became disappointed in them, he caused a great flood the killed nearly everything.... and still was not satisfies,,,,and so then caused his son to come to earth to be tortured and killed by his chosen people...so that if people believed this had happened, then he could forgive them... even though he knew that lots of people would not believe and so would have to be consigned to eternal torture.... but for those who did believe in this story... the creator of the Big Bang would want to hang out with the believers for an infinity of time.

and we know all of the above because “there has to be a first cause....”

 

Not if the First Mover is eternal. If the FM is eternal, then it (by definition) cannot be created.

The logic behind the argument of a First Mover is sound.

 

Gee...I long forgot about this thread...then it got bumped back up. So let me reply to your last post.

Ok...I had to look up the definition of "special pleading" since I'm not well read on philosophy or the terms...and this is what it says.

So...based on the definition, if your assessment is that my explanation/justification is 'special pleading', then you need to explain/justify why it is not adequate for proclaiming a 'special case'. Hurling philosophical terms without explaining your position doesn't do anything for your argument. You have to show why a person's argument is a so-called 'fallacy'.

If you read carefully the very simple explanation I posted previously regarding infinite regression, you should be able to gather what I was saying. It's not rocket science...but simple logic. I always talk in simple, layman's terms because I'm not read-up or educated on all the philosophical jargon/lingo & ideas. So I often have to look up the definitions. What I've learned in discussions with avid philosophers & 'thinkers' who do, however, is that everything they say can be reworded in much simpler terms so that everyone can understand it. Afterall, the nature of reality/the universe is very simple. The only impossible question to answer (because it can't be answered) is how any-thing can even exist.

Getting back to infinite regression:

What I attempted to convey in my earlier post is...
(1) If All is One (which is irrefutable)...then
(2) the observer & object (ie, Self & awareness) are one and the same...and hence,
(3) we're left with a necessary contradiction that infinite regression is both a given and irrelevant.

* It's a given because infinite regression not only defines the very nature of Oneness, but also existence.
* It's irrelevant because the very act of attempting to determine a 'first cause' will always reveal nothing but that from which one started...the 'first cause'. (In even simpler terms, there's exists no fundamental delineation between 'creator' and 'created'.) So, because observer & object are the same, the existence of either requires the existence of both. Either both exist, or neither can exist.

One may then wonder...which one 'created' the other, or which 'emerged' first (like the chicken & the egg conundrum)? But the question, as explained, is irrelevant. The Self cannot know either it-Self or other Selves absolutely. There is only infinite experience.

However, the biggest question really is...how did the observer-object relationship (and thus, awareness/existence) ever 'emerge' from Oneness? Other than the two representing another necessary contradiction...this question, as stated before, has no answer because it would first require that the observer escape the observer-object relationship (ie, escape it-self). But without this relationship, the observer (Self) would cease to exist. The inability to escape it-self is exactly why Oneness can never determine the 'origin' of its own awareness (existence). It can only experience it-self infinitely (it's self-feeding)...and eternally (absence of time).

Oneness can have the experience of limited awareness through the illusion of separation (space/time/causality), which gives it its 'existence'...but Oneness is not defined by those limitations. Thus, there is no first cause/mover or Creator.

 

Yes.