Could there have been a first cause? (eternal, Universe, difference)

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God.
It would seem you spoke too soon about amicability, Matrix.

Using our own consciousness as the exemplar for the God consciousness that establishes our "Universe" or everything that exists. There are myriad examples in the fiction racks of bookstores and on the movie screens of theaters and on DVDs of Creation by thought. If as I propose . . . the universal field IS the consciousness of God . . . then thinking things into existence simply means rearranging God's thoughts to form new vibratory complexes of energy for us to experience in the middle world of perception established by the vibratory range of our sensory system.

Howdy Mystic! I have for a while now thought your view to be intriguing.

[The Matrix]

Hi Ourself. I appreciate your comments.

Originally Posted by Ourself

See, my logic says that it would be called an effect. Afterall an effect is what causes causes, lol. It makes more sense to me to call the eternal thing that is the cause of all causes an effect. Why would it be called an uncaused cause? That is very misleading. It doesn't go cause, cause, effect... It goes cause, effect, cause, effect. This is be-CAUSE that was.

"Is" being effect, "was" being a cause.

I would call it an uncaused effect and that is why I said there can be no first cause.

You are right, that an effect is what causes causes. But we know this through observation. Analytically speaking, however, just looking at the terms themselves, an effect is what is brought about by some cause--it is the result of a particular cause. And looked at the other way, a cause is that which brings about an effect. The two go hand in hand, one following the other, one prior to the other, related by a "causal relation." But there is no definitional necessity in claiming that every effect is also a cause. So "logically speaking," it remains open to say that not every cause is an effect.

So I don't think it is misleading to talk of an "uncaused cause."

Originally Posted by Ourself

Some of us don't find infinite regress to be a problem. That is why I don't believe in a first cause. It denotes a beginning to the way of things.

There are different kinds of regresses, and some of them should probably bother everyone. But the kind of regress we're talking about here (I think) is just an infinite chain of cause/effect going on into the past. This could be problematic--after all, if there was no beginning, how did we get to the present moment? An infinite chain of causes could never be crossed. But I do know that not every theist is bothered by an infinite chain of efficient causality--Aquinas allowed for it in one of his arguments (if memory serves me), and Leibniz allowed for it as well. Leibniz still thought a "first cause" was necessary, even if the physical world stretches back into an infinite past. Personally, I'm fine with an infinite chain of causal events. I think.

Originally Posted by Ourself

But either way if nothing else please answer why God could be eternal but not the Universe?

Well, I wouldn't dare say that, considering that you have stipulated that "universe" includes everything (including God). Something in the universe (something that exists) has to be eternal. Theists claim that the eternality of the universe is due to something that is uncaused, that does not rely on something else for its existence. Now, you may dispute that there is such a thing, you can shoot holes in these arguments, but your claim is actually much stronger: that there cannot be a first cause. I don't think you've shown that yet.

Originally Posted by Ourself

To somebody who is impartial, if something exists, it is a part of the world if by world you mean Universe.

By "world" I did not mean "universe" in the way you mean "universe."

Originally Posted by Ourself

That is something you will have to clear up before we can continue I think...

Not sure what you mean?

Originally Posted by Ourself

Your argument is based on God creating the Universe. I assumed your argument was based on what you believe.

I actually haven't given an argument. I'm just trying to help in understanding "first cause" arguments. I guess I'm also trying to show your claim is a bit strong (that no first cause is possible).

Originally Posted by Ourself

I'm glad you don't care because as I've pointed out, that is what the word means originally. And yes, if God exists, Universe includes God. The ground of being would be the potential to be. Just because potential doesn't take up space doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the Universe.

As I said, I don't mind using the term in the way you suggest. But I'm not overly fond of wikipedia as an authority. Word usage really does change, broaden, take on additional meanings. Language is far from static.

In any case, the "ground of being" way of understanding God is far away from being included in the category of "everything that exists." This is really pretty complicated stuff. The view is something like a conceptually negative understanding of God: that nothing we can say of God is actually true of God. Even terms like "existence" do not really apply to God, since God is beyond our conceptual apparatus. God cannot be stuffed in a category. This is probably beyond the thread.

Originally Posted by Ourself

I don't agree at all that God would be independant of the Universe. I would say that if there is God, It is the living Universe and almost more of a verb than a noun.

Your view sounds like pantheism. But theists have a diversity of views on the relationship between God and the world. Some hold there is an extreme ontological gap between them; some hold there is a much closer relation.

Originally Posted by Ourself

If you don't think anyone makes this claim, you obviously haven't been paying attention, lol.

Well, maybe that's true. But nobody worth reading has made this claim, as far as I can tell!

[Ourself]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Hi Ourself. I appreciate your comments.

You are right, that an effect is what causes causes. But we know this through observation. Analytically speaking, however, just looking at the terms themselves, an effect is what is brought about by some cause--it is the result of a particular cause. And looked at the other way, a cause is that which brings about an effect. The two go hand in hand, one following the other, one prior to the other, related by a "causal relation." But there is no definitional necessity in claiming that every effect is also a cause. So "logically speaking," it remains open to say that not every cause is an effect.

Can you give me an example of an effect that is not also a cause of some sort? I think you're reaching here.

So I don't think it is misleading to talk of an "uncaused cause."

Obviously I do.

There are different kinds of regresses, and some of them should probably bother everyone. But the kind of regress we're talking about here (I think) is just an infinite chain of cause/effect going on into the past.

No offence but anyone reading the thread could figure out the kind I was talking about.

This could be problematic--after all, if there was no beginning, how did we get to the present moment? An infinite chain of causes could never be crossed.

I still don't see the problem. Afterall, it's no harder to ponder than a personal God who didn't need to develope but that knew precisely how to go about... Well, everything, right?

But I do know that not every theist is bothered by an infinite chain of efficient causality--Aquinas allowed for it in one of his arguments (if memory serves me), and Leibniz allowed for it as well. Leibniz still thought a "first cause" was necessary, even if the physical world stretches back into an infinite past. Personally, I'm fine with an infinite chain of causal events. I think.

Yeah, me too.

Well, I wouldn't dare say that, considering that you have stipulated that "universe" includes everything (including God). Something in the universe (something that exists) has to be eternal.

Energy IS eternal. It is just always changing.

Theists claim that the eternality of the universe is due to something that is uncaused, that does not rely on something else for its existence. Now, you may dispute that there is such a thing, you can shoot holes in these arguments, but your claim is actually much stronger: that there cannot be a first cause. I don't think you've shown that yet.

I have never said there was not such a thing. I just cannot fathom it being aware of what it was doing originally or having a personality that didn't need forming.

I actually haven't given an argument. I'm just trying to help in understanding "first cause" arguments. I guess I'm also trying to show your claim is a bit strong (that no first cause is possible).

A first cause denotes a beginning of everything which denotes a time of nothing which I believe is impossible. Nothing means no changing.

As I said, I don't mind using the term in the way you suggest. But I'm not overly fond of wikipedia as an authority. Word usage really does change, broaden, take on additional meanings. Language is far from static.

For the most part Wiki is fine. If you wish to challenge the truth of their statement you can follow their sources.

In any case, the "ground of being" way of understanding God is far away from being included in the category of "everything that exists." This is really pretty complicated stuff. The view is something like a conceptually negative understanding of God: that nothing we can say of God is actually true of God. Even terms like "existence" do not really apply to God, since God is beyond our conceptual apparatus. God cannot be stuffed in a category. This is probably beyond the thread.

Yes it is. This thread is mainly concerned with whether or not there could be a first cause. Not whether or not it could be magical and "be" without existing.

I love it when people say God cannot be understood... How would you know?

Your view sounds like pantheism. But theists have a diversity of views on the relationship between God and the world. Some hold there is an extreme ontological gap between them; some hold there is a much closer relation.

It's more like a combination of the Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist ways.

Well, maybe that's true. But nobody worth reading has made this claim, as far as I can tell!

That's ok... Nobody worth reading has ever been able to refute it either.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Howdy Mystic! I have for a while now thought your view to be intriguing.

Good to see you again, Matrix . . . how are things going? Actually my view is quite rigorous, as well . . . though I've not found an audience up to the task of appreciating its intricacies (with the possible exception of you).

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by Ourself

Can you give me an example of an effect that is not also a cause of some sort? I think you're reaching here.

We're talking about definitions. And "logically speaking"--that is, by the definitions of the terms, or by an examination of the concepts--effects are not necessarily causes, and causes are not necessarily effects. As far as these "definitions" are concerned, there is nothing logically to prevent a cause from NOT being an effect. Full stop. Of course, you very well might doubt that there is any such thing as an "uncaused cause." You might point to all of observable nature and say that nobody has seen any "uncaused cause." But that is completely besides the point. If you insist that BY DEFINITION there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause--because you haven't seen any--then you beg the question against the theist who makes this argument. The theistic claim is that there is just one (or at least one) uncaused cause, and that all of observable nature is caused. But it is precisely because observable nature is caused, that everything we see is NOT sufficient unto itself, but depends on its existence for something else--it is because of this that an uncaused cause is required. Or so a theist can claim.

Originally Posted by Ourself

Energy IS eternal. It is just always changing.

Maybe so. Maybe it's not. I'm certainly open to it.

Originally Posted by Ourself

I have never said there was not such a thing. I just cannot fathom it being aware of what it was doing originally or having a personality that didn't need forming.

Really? Your entire argument seems to be for the conclusion that there cannot be a first cause. I'm a bit confused.

Originally Posted by Ourself

A first cause denotes a beginning of everything which denotes a time of nothing which I believe is impossible. Nothing means no changing.

See? You here claim that a first cause is impossible.

But I'm not sure what you say here is accurate. A "first cause" does NOT denote a beginning of "EVERYTHING." It doesn't, as you suggest, denote a time of nothing. A first cause is simply that which is uncaused by anything else, and is the cause of everything else.

Also, I don't think I agree that "nothing means no change." It's after all logically possible for there to exist "something" that does not change. Change typically refers to, or relates to, the passage of time. But the absence of change does not entail "nothing."

Originally Posted by Ourself

That's ok... Nobody worth reading has ever been able to refute it either.

I'm losing the flow--what is it that nobody has been able to refute? Is it that "everything has a cause"? If so, then I think I have already sufficiently addressed this.

[Ourself]

Matrix;

We're talking about definitions. And "logically speaking"--that is, by the definitions of the terms, or by an examination of the concepts--effects are not necessarily causes, and causes are not necessarily effects. As far as these "definitions" are concerned, there is nothing logically to prevent a cause from NOT being an effect. Full stop.

I don't think it is possible for there to be something which is independant of everything else. Just as a "just in case", that doesn't make me an Atheist.

Of course, you very well might doubt that there is any such thing as an "uncaused cause." You might point to all of observable nature and say that nobody has seen any "uncaused cause." But that is completely besides the point. If you insist that BY DEFINITION there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause--because you haven't seen any--then you beg the question against the theist who makes this argument.

I don't really want to do that. I'm not here to insult anybodys beliefs, I'm just sharing my view. It may be silly how I go on about definitions sometimes but to make those points, the original meaning of "universe" is kind of an important distinction. The o/p isn't supposed to convey God or not God. Talking about God is only a natural way to go though when talking about an absolute cause.

The theistic claim is that there is just one (or at least one) uncaused cause, and that all of observable nature is caused. But it is precisely because observable nature is caused, that everything we see is NOT sufficient unto itself, but depends on its existence for something else--it is because of this that an uncaused cause is required. Or so a theist can claim.

An Atheist can claim that too. I guess the distinction is whether or not the eternal element is a deity or force with a personality.

Maybe I'm being confusing when I go on about definitions this and definitions that because my only problem with "uncaused cause" is I think it's an illogical thing to say. That is why I said there can be no first cause... To me, the eternal element would be an uncaused effect but that could just be semantics.

Maybe so. Maybe it's not. I'm certainly open to it.

It's the current understanding in physics... Conservation laws and such.

Really? Your entire argument seems to be for the conclusion that there cannot be a first cause. I'm a bit confused.

Sorry about that. My entire argument is that there had to be something which is eternal. The confusion is mostly in my not understanding that when you say uncaused cause, it's basically the same thing as me saying uncaused effect. In my way of seeing, the eternal element is a flow of change and causality. For some reason it makes more sense to me to call a flow an effect rather than a cause.

But I'm not sure what you say here is accurate. A "first cause" does NOT denote a beginning of "EVERYTHING."

Not if there was already an effect, no.

It doesn't, as you suggest, denote a time of nothing. A first cause is simply that which is uncaused by anything else, and is the cause of everything else.

Which would mean there had to have been an eternal element. Since an eternal element wouldn't have a cause... That's what I was meaning. I didn't know the phrase "uncaused cause" was so popular.

Also, I don't think I agree that "nothing means no change." It's after all logically possible for there to exist "something" that does not change.

The only thing that could possibly stay the same forever is the fact that everything changes.

Say the Universe is indeed eternal, that doesn't mean it doesn't change. It's in a frenzy of activity at all times. And say it is God that is eternal, that doesn't mean God never changes. If God never changed, how would It decide to create anything?

Change typically refers to, or relates to, the passage of time. But the absence of change does not entail "nothing."

Actually, time is a dimension with which we measure change. Time as we know it started with the big bang (apparently) but that doesn't mean there was no change before the big bang. I mean, it could be considered time if anyone was tracking everything but not time like how we use it.

I'm losing the flow--what is it that nobody has been able to refute? Is it that "everything has a cause"? If so, then I think I have already sufficiently addressed this.

Everything has a cause but the way of all things is eternal.

By refute, I mean disprove.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by Ourself

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing comes from nothing.
3. There could not have been a first cause.

Even if God created the Universe, something must have caused God to decide to create the Universe. If there was only God, there is still only God or else where did God get the materials to create with in the first place?

And even if this area was a result of a big bang type of beginning, it was not the true beginning of the Universe because something had to cause the big bang.

There could never have been a "time" when there was no potential for change or logically, nothing would have ever happened or we would be frozen in a moment (to which we would be none the wiser anyways).

"This is because that was"
-- Buddha.

I'm going to comment on this before reading everybody's responses because I don't want to be influenced by other opinions yet, and I don't really have time to go through the whole thread . So, I apologise in advance if the conversation has strayed away from the OP and my response isn't relevant anymore.

I often see the argument on here that "it all had to come from somewhere, therefore there had to be a creator". I agree with what you seem to be indicating here, I don't think this is necessarily true or logical. Why did it have to come from somewhere? Why could it have not just always have existed?

We think that because our life is apparently finite (it has a beginning and an end) then it follows that everything else must as well. I don't think that this is sound reasoning, that's like saying "I am a human, therefore everything else in the universe must be human". I am forming the opinion that everything is cyclic, that the energy that constitutes this universe is infinite and goes through cycles, expanding and forming matter then collapsing in on itself and breaking down matter and then doing it all again. Some may say that this universal energy, which is constant, is a god but I think that depends on what you define a god as. If the definition is a conscious being then I think that there is no reason to believe this to be the case at all, although I concede that there is no reason to believe it is not a god either. I guess I am being too conditioned with research methods and procedures because I prefer to go with the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. Beyond the universe my guess is that there are dimensions that we cannot conceive of because of the limitations of the reality we find ourselves in now.

I don't think there had to be a beginning just because we as humans have trouble conceiving of the infinite. That's just what I think anyway.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

I am forming the opinion that everything is cyclic, that the energy that constitutes this universe is infinite and goes through cycles, expanding and forming matter then collapsing in on itself and breaking down matter and then doing it all again. Some may say that this universal energy, which is constant, is a god but I think that depends on what you define a god as. If the definition is a conscious being then I think that there is no reason to believe this to be the case at all, although I concede that there is no reason to believe it is not a god either. I guess I am being too conditioned with research methods and procedures because I prefer to go with the null hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Good to see you again, Lady Ice . . . the problem with your method lies in the "measurement" realm. It is only useful if we can "measure" the hypothesized property to be tested. We have the unfortunate situation of knowing that consciousness exists . . . but not being unable to "measure" it in a direct way. This frustrates any attempts to test the universal field for its presence. Still . . . in the absence of any other viable alternative source for the field . . . a known phenomenon that also has a field seems like at least a plausible explanation. The fact that it currently requires and is amenable only to subjective verification should not render it in the same class as the absurd FSMs, fairies, teapots, Leprechauns, etc. etc.

I don't think there had to be a beginning just because we as humans have trouble conceiving of the infinite. That's just what I think anyway.

I agree . . . Sir Fred Hoyle would have agreed with you too.

[Ourself]

Originally Posted by Lady Ice

I'm going to comment on this before reading everybody's responses because I don't want to be influenced by other opinions yet, and I don't really have time to go through the whole thread . So, I apologise in advance if the conversation has strayed away from the OP and my response isn't relevant anymore.

I often see the argument on here that "it all had to come from somewhere, therefore there had to be a creator". I agree with what you seem to be indicating here, I don't think this is necessarily true or logical. Why did it have to come from somewhere? Why could it have not just always have existed?

Exactly. If something had to have always existed, why couldn't it just be the universal flow?

We think that because our life is apparently finite (it has a beginning and an end) then it follows that everything else must as well. I don't think that this is sound reasoning, that's like saying "I am a human, therefore everything else in the universe must be human". I am forming the opinion that everything is cyclic, that the energy that constitutes this universe is infinite and goes through cycles, expanding and forming matter then collapsing in on itself and breaking down matter and then doing it all again.

Hmmm... I'm more of a multiverse man over big crunch. I believe in an eternal set containing an infinite sets. Each set is a sub universe started by its own big bang. Like a fractal. But anyways;

Some may say that this universal energy, which is constant, is a god but I think that depends on what you define a god as. If the definition is a conscious being then I think that there is no reason to believe this to be the case at all, although I concede that there is no reason to believe it is not a god either. I guess I am being too conditioned with research methods and procedures because I prefer to go with the null hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Me too. But I like to play with it anyways. I don't mind having theistic beliefs as long as I don't have faith in any of them.

Beyond the universe my guess is that there are dimensions that we cannot conceive of because of the limitations of the reality we find ourselves in now.

Could be. I still don't believe there is an outside of the Universe even though I believe in a multiverse style Universe.

I don't think there had to be a beginning just because we as humans have trouble conceiving of the infinite. That's just what I think anyway.

I'm with you on that one.

[Lady Ice]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Good to see you again, Lady Ice . . . the problem with your method lies in the "measurement" realm. It is only useful if we can "measure" the hypothesized property to be tested. We have the unfortunate situation of knowing that consciousness exists . . . but not being unable to "measure" it in a direct way. This frustrates any attempts to test the universal field for its presence. Still . . . in the absence of any other viable alternative source for the field . . . a known phenomenon that also has a field seems like at least a plausible explanation. The fact that it currently requires and is amenable only to subjective verification should not render it in the same class as the absurd FSMs, fairies, teapots, Leprechauns, etc. etc.I agree . . . Sir Fred Hoyle would have agreed with you too.

Hi Mystic,
You're absolutely right, that is a problem that it can't be measured and equating it with a known phenomenon is indeed plausible but not absolutely necessary or true, in my opinion.

What I was really trying to say is that I would rather go with the idea that it just is with no conscious being guiding it (this being the default because it is not necessary to introduce an entity to guide or create), pending further information. When that further information is subjective then how do we verify it? I have had some very "supernatural" (although I don't like that word) experiences but I can't prove them and even though they felt real, they can't be proven to be. They could have been events contained wholly within my own psyche. We don't know anywhere near everything yet so in the end all anyone has is a best guess given the information they have gathered thus far.

I would never equate anything you say with fairytale substitutes, I think you know I have a little more respect than that.