The First Cause

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I hope so!

How many times will we continue to respond?

You cannot answer that question because time does not exsist.

[urroner]

There is no "first" anything outside of space-time. The whole infinity of expanding Existence is "present", or NOW. I can only say that the concept exists in my mind, but I can't readily apply words to it. I doubt that empirical mathematics can even "go there" at all; nor even make a start.

There is this "alternate" concept of Void, where infinity is defined as utter emptiness. BOTH exist; both are present or NOW. So too is every possible permutation of every existing state of every particle and cosmic entity. It all Exists without any before or after and utterly without number. Infinity cannot be numbered or given a definable quantity from a space-time perspective.

Also, when we say "God thinks and acts", that does not signify an idea followed by an acting out of the idea. The idea and the act are the same thing. ALL ideas (or possible permutations) and acts (or realities) are the stuff of space-time. For a thing to Exist it must be given space-time definition. And none of the possible realities are mutually exclusive; ALL of them Exist, each within "a" space-time.

This is very challenging to try and explain; especially when the mere concept of it all is so incomplete in my mind to begin with. As I write this kind of explanation, again and again, the concepts change slightly each time; even the explanations are individual; no two are exactly alike. I could go on doing this forever, I believe, and never finish with a complete explanation of what "God" is and does....

The thought can be the action, you have no argument from me there, but since thought is an action, it still requires to occur within the boundaries of a temporal dimension.

All I'm saying is that for God to do anything, there has to be an action, a before and an afterward. The duration between the two could be zero, but there has to be a before and an afterward and so, a temporal dimension is required. It doesn't have to even be the temporal dimension that we exist in. AFAIK, God is a being from a universe of a billion dimensions, but He still needs a temporal dimension to do anything.

I can mentally grasp something that is endless. That's easy, but not for the life of me can I grasp something with no beginning. That's where my finite mind fails. I understand how it has to be, but I don't understand how it can be.

I also understand that the laws of nature/physics in our universe are more than likely, completely unique to our universe. The law of physics in other universes, for all intents and purposes, are different in other universes that have three spatial dimensions. There might not be "gravity" in some of these universes or the gravitation constant is different in these universes. In fact, gravity, in lieu of being a force of attraction, could be a force pushing things apart. But there has to be a temporal dimension in all these universe.

Dang, there are even universes out there with more dimensions than our universe and some with even few than ours and the laws of physics in these places, I can't even begin to imagine what they could be. I can imagine a universe with two spatial dimensions, it's just a plane with width and breadth, but it has no height. I can't imagine how anything could exist within it, but I sure something could.

But a universe with more spatial dimensions, I can't begin to imagine it, but I can see how something could exist in it better than a two dimensional universe.

A black hole is an interesting beast. This is where all spatial dimensions are destroyed. A black hole, if I understand it correctly, is a point in space with no dimensions. It has no size. String theory is interesting and I wished I had more time to study it, but life is too demanding right now.

Our universe was created by the collapse of a part of a higher dimensional universe and the dimensions from that universe that didn't "make it" into our universe as dimensions, curled up and became matter and energy in our universe. It elemental particle in our universe is a piece of a dimension that curled up on itself and the different dimensions have different characteristics.

But no matter what the universe is or how many dimensions it has, there has to exist within it a temporal dimension. Even within a black hole, a "space" of no spatial dimensions, there is a temporal dimension.

My head hurts now.

[urroner]

You cannot answer that question because time does not exsist.

You can answer it, but all those times all occur at the same exact time, one after another.

[ELF1024]

You can answer it, but all those times all occur at the same exact time, one after another.

The Doctor: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

[urroner]

Einstein gave a lecture at some prestigious university and explain how nothing could go faster than the speed of light. He thought he did a bang up job until one student raised his hand and asked how could Superman go faster than the speed of light. Einstein paused and said that there had to be something wrong with his theory and he had to go back and somehow put Superman into the equation.

I was just waiting for somebody to bring up the Doctor into the discussion.

[mfbukowski]

You cannot answer that question because time does not exsist.

[Hughes]

You cannot answer that question because time does not exsist.

Not that it matters, but that is a misquote of what I said. Thanks.

Hughes, on 23 May 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist.

[Hughes]

I can mentally grasp something that is endless. That's easy, but not for the life of me can I grasp something with no beginning. That's where my finite mind fails. I understand how it has to be, but I don't understand how it can be.

Then what started it all?

[urroner]

Then what started it all?

Suppose I was an atheist, you would probably deride me for saying that there was not beginning for stuff, that what it is composed of has always existed, that there is no first cause. You would probably insist that God is the first cause. That gives a nice, tidy little answer that answers everything. But does it?

No it doesn't. Stating that God has no beginning and without cause is logically the same as insisting that "stuff" had no beginning. Something had to have no beginning.

So, if you were to demand from an atheist to explain to your satisfaction how "stuff" could have no beginning would be exactly the same as this atheist demanding from you to explain how God could have no beginning.

So Hughes, let me make a deal with you, you first answer the question "How can God have no beginning or no first cause?" and then I will explain to you, probably using your own logic how "stuff" can have no beginning or first cause.

I will await your answer to that question.

[urroner]

Hughes, on 23 May 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist.

What is meant by "absolute" and other than your word, do you have any sound evidence to back your statement up?

[Hughes]

Suppose I was an atheist, you would probably deride me for saying that there was not beginning for stuff, that what it is composed of has always existed, that there is no first cause. You would probably insist that God is the first cause. That gives a nice, tidy little answer that answers everything. But does it?

No it doesn't. Stating that God has no beginning and without cause is logically the same as insisting that "stuff" had no beginning. Something had to have no beginning.

So, if you were to demand from an atheist to explain to your satisfaction how "stuff" could have no beginning would be exactly the same as this atheist demanding from you to explain how God could have no beginning.

So Hughes, let me make a deal with you, you first answer the question "How can God have no beginning or no first cause?" and then I will explain to you, probably using your own logic how "stuff" can have no beginning or first cause.

I will await your answer to that question.

The question is what "had no beginning?" Stuff or a Being. Really, those are our choices.

If we choose "stuff" (meaning all sorts of energy and things...) then we have to account for entropy and the fact that stuff (or things) are observed to run down. Stars and everything becomes less and less energized, and given enough time, energy would all run out. So, theoretically, if stuff was "eternal" then we wouldn't expect to see the eternal stuff continually losing energy.

If we choose a "being" or entity, then we'd at least have accounted for the entropy problem. But, then the conundrum of identity of this being, and the nagging problem of where the being came from, of course theoretically, if the being has eternally existed, then though we are still nagged with the question, we've accepted that it answers it in theory. As in theory, this "being" is the source of all energy as well.

Both answers have difficulties, but it seems to me that the one that says, "stuff is eternal" has greater difficulties.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist.

um.................yeah.

[Hughes]

What is meant by "absolute" and other than your word, do you have any sound evidence to back your statement up?

Any time we measure something, the measuring device has to be calibrated. Basics of scientific investigation right?

Atomic clocks are our most accurate measuring device for the passage of time, correct? However, in experiments where one clock is on the Earth and one in a plane the clocks differ when compared.

So, the effects of theory of relativity and time are seen, in the atomic clocks, yet is that actually measuring time as we experience it? That's what I'm referring to.

For example, different animals experience time differently. For a fly who lives two weeks total, a minute is more like a hour to them.

Seems to me that time isn't an absolute "thing" that exists, as gravity is, but is largely based on perception, when talking about the passage of time.

For a six year old, a year is 1/6th of their life, for an 80 year old it's much less and a year seems to go by faster. Time seems relative not absolute.

[mfbukowski]

Time seems relative not absolute.

You are catching on.

So is God

[Ambrose]

I will check them out when I get a chance- I appreciate the reply. Frankly though, I think I know how I will respond before I even read them; a Wittgensteinian responding to Aristotle is likely to see only problems in his "language games"

Perhaps an alternative discussion might result if you decide to read the article I referenced in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy under "Process Theology"

I wonder if you think the arguments made there against Thomism are valid- (of course you won't!) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

We really are coming from different worlds and speaking different languages- but a discussion might be interesting. Or not

Again I apologize for the late response to your post, mfbukowski, especially when I have so desired to speak to you. If you should like to know, though, the world of the groceries is still holding firm but requires many young men like myself to maintain. It would be nice if I could somehow convince this store that they need a full time theologian rather than a general merchandise clerk.

Have you read Posterior Analytics or any of the Organon? The Philosopher raises some wonderful questions and possible solutions to certain problems for the methods of the natural scientist (he who investigates the principles of nature, philosophically and empirically). Honestly, this is where I find the Peripatetic to be leaps and bounds above other philosophers: His treatment of the method of the sciences, especially of the Physics and of Metaphysics, are perennial. If we were to have a conversation, as between these two camps (W & A), I would be more interested in examining the Philosopher's methodology, not his conclusions.

Process theology has some ancient precedent in those who opposed the Neoplatonic tradition of mythologizing the ancient gods. Interestingly, I think that the strongest argument of modern process theologians is the strongest of those anti-platonists: the problem of Love.

How can an immutable subject love? The anti-platonists positioned their selves similarly: How can an immutable subject be a god if it lacks in passions?

But the strength of this argument relies on our avoiding any discussion of the nature of love, or how it is that we are able to say that we love, or how it is that any Will might love the very Intellect that is its own logical antecedent. These things I think are partially answered by the Philosopher in the Ethics, and completed by the Angelic Doctor in the Second Part of his Summa.

This argument is also especially strong if the opponents have no theory of analogy, for without a theory of analogy they are reduced to simple equivocation, and that is where the process theologian seems to triumph, for the process theologian in some way requires that certain acts of the Intellect be the same for all creatures possessing Intellect and the Creator that is Intellect, hence their fall into panentheism.

On another note, I certainly don't agree with Hughes' theory of time, nor of his understanding of how it is that God is atemporal, but I do think that one area that might improve his conversation is dealing with the question of whether or not the "past" is ever predicated of a thing absolutely or if it is only a relative predication or some combination of the two.

[mfbukowski]

Again I apologize for the late response to your post, mfbukowski, especially when I have so desired to speak to you. If you should like to know, though, the world of the groceries is still holding firm but requires many young men like myself to maintain. It would be nice if I could somehow convince this store that they need a full time theologian rather than a general merchandise clerk.

Have you read Posterior Analytics or any of the Organon? The Philosopher raises some wonderful questions and possible solutions to certain problems for the methods of the natural scientist (he who investigates the principles of nature, philosophically and empirically). Honestly, this is where I find the Peripatetic to be leaps and bounds above other philosophers: His treatment of the method of the sciences, especially of the Physics and of Metaphysics, are perennial. If we were to have a conversation, as between these two camps (W & A), I would be more interested in examining the Philosopher's methodology, not his conclusions.

Process theology has some ancient precedent in those who opposed the Neoplatonic tradition of mythologizing the ancient gods. Interestingly, I think that the strongest argument of modern process theologians is the strongest of those anti-platonists: the problem of Love.

How can an immutable subject love? The anti-platonists positioned their selves similarly: How can an immutable subject be a god if it lacks in passions?

But the strength of this argument relies on our avoiding any discussion of the nature of love, or how it is that we are able to say that we love, or how it is that any Will might love the very Intellect that is its own logical antecedent. These things I think are partially answered by the Philosopher in the Ethics, and completed by the Angelic Doctor in the Second Part of his Summa.

This argument is also especially strong if the opponents have no theory of analogy, for without a theory of analogy they are reduced to simple equivocation, and that is where the process theologian seems to triumph, for the process theologian in some way requires that certain acts of the Intellect be the same for all creatures possessing Intellect and the Creator that is Intellect, hence their fall into panentheism.

On another note, I certainly don't agree with Hughes' theory of time, nor of his understanding of how it is that God is atemporal, but I do think that one area that might improve his conversation is dealing with the question of whether or not the "past" is ever predicated of a thing absolutely or if it is only a relative predication or some combination of the two.

Thanks- let me ask you this: have you read any of the later Wittgenstein- Philosophical Investigations, Blue or Brown books, etc?

The reason I am asking is that we might have a major communications problem- you may find yourself speaking to an "alien" (me!) because our thought patterns are so different.

In fact, Wittgenstein used Augustine as a kind of "poster child" for what he did not like about previous philosophy- this from the Stanford Encyclopedia:

PI begins with a quote from Augustine's Confessions which "give us a particular picture of the essence of human language," based on the idea that "individual words in language name objects," and that "sentences are combinations of such names" (PI 1). This picture of language cannot be relied on as a basis for metaphysical, epistemic or linguistic speculation. Despite its plausibility, this reduction of language to representation cannot do justice to the whole of human language; and even if it is to be considered a picture of only the representative function of human language, it is, as such, a poor picture. Furthermore, this picture of language is at the base of the whole of traditional philosophy, but, for Wittgenstein, it is to be shunned in favor of a new way of looking at both language and philosophy. The Philosophical Investigations proceeds to offer the new way of looking at language, which will yield the view of philosophy as therapy.

So in short, one cannot get farther apart than Aristotle and Wittgenstein- the differences in world view are phenomenal. Wittgenstein was somewhat famous for calling much of previous philosophy "nonsense".

Accordingly, "the word ‘philosophy’ must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences" (TLP 4.111). Not surprisingly, then, "most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical" (TLP 4.003). Is, then, philosophy doomed to be nonsense (unsinnig), or, at best, senseless (sinnlos) when it does logic, but, in any case, meaningless? What is left for the philosopher to do, if traditional, or even revolutionary, propositions of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics cannot be formulated in a sensical manner? The reply to these two questions is found in Wittgenstein's characterization of philosophy: philosophy is not a theory, or a doctrine, but rather an activity. It is an activity of clarification (of thoughts), and more so, of critique (of language). Described by Wittgenstein, it should be the philosopher's routine activity: to react or respond to the traditional philosophers' musings by showing them where they go wrong, using the tools provided by logical analysis. In other words, by showing them that (some of) their propositions are nonsense.

So though the enterprise might be interesting, with your schedule and mine, it may be overly ambitious -?

[Questing Beast]

If "stuff" had no beginning, then "stuff" is "God". I have no problem with an infinity of concepts all pointing to "God", and even apparently mutually exclusive concepts too. That is part of "the perfect joke": finite beings arguing over apparently mutually exclusive concepts for the Infinite.

It doesn't change anything to believe in one over the other: "stuff" always existing or "God" always existing. You wind up with the same conundrum: Existence in the first place: how to explain it without a beginning? It just is. And the fact that we, as part of Existence in the first place, are sapient, is proof that "stuff" or "God" is sapient; or else we could not be....

[Vance]

The question is what "had no beginning?" Stuff or a Being. Really, those are our choices.

The logical fallacy of false choice raises its ugly head.

Again, I am reminded why I have you on ignore.

[Ambrose]

Thanks- let me ask you this: have you read any of the later Wittgenstein- Philosophical Investigations, Blue or Brown books, etc?

The reason I am asking is that we might have a major communications problem- you may find yourself speaking to an "alien" (me!) because our thought patterns are so different.

In fact, Wittgenstein used Augustine as a kind of "poster child" for what he did not like about previous philosophy- this from the Stanford Encyclopedia:

So in short, one cannot get farther apart than Aristotle and Wittgenstein- the differences in world view are phenomenal. Wittgenstein was somewhat famous for calling much of previous philosophy "nonsense".

So though the enterprise might be interesting, with your schedule and mine, it may be overly ambitious -?

I'm afraid that I am only moderately familiar with a few passages from the TLP, as most of Wittgenstein's vocabulary is so very foreign to me that I must take modern summaries to make any sense of him. But I do entirely understand your point that we would have a very hard time having a conversation!

You are right to think any conversation that we might have to be overly ambitious, but that is the nature of any sort of philosophical work. It is ambitious. (:

(Thank you for your quick reply.)

[urroner]

The question is what "had no beginning?" Stuff or a Being. Really, those are our choices.

Why not both?

If we choose "stuff" (meaning all sorts of energy and things...) then we have to account for entropy and the fact that stuff (or things) are observed to run down. Stars and everything becomes less and less energized, and given enough time, energy would all run out. So, theoretically, if stuff was "eternal" then we wouldn't expect to see the eternal stuff continually losing energy.

If we choose a "being" or entity, then we'd at least have accounted for the entropy problem. But, then the conundrum of identity of this being, and the nagging problem of where the being came from, of course theoretically, if the being has eternally existed, then though we are still nagged with the question, we've accepted that it answers it in theory. As in theory, this "being" is the source of all energy as well.

You are limiting your answer to what is being experienced in our universe. Is the same law of entropy hold true throughout all universes, even those with a different number of dimensions?

Both answers have difficulties, but it seems to me that the one that says, "stuff is eternal" has greater difficulties.

This is only true if one limits nature to what one can only observe in this universe. You seem to forget that a huge problem with God always existing is where did He get all His knowledge and power from and then there is His unchangeability? His knowledge hasn't increased one iota throughout the eternities, nor has His power. That problem seems to be more insurmountable that any problem with "stuff."

[Hughes]

Why not both?

You are limiting your answer to what is being experienced in our universe. Is the same law of entropy hold true throughout all universes, even those with a different number of dimensions?

This is only true if one limits nature to what one can only observe in this universe. You seem to forget that a huge problem with God always existing is where did He get all His knowledge and power from and then there is His unchangeability? His knowledge hasn't increased one iota throughout the eternities, nor has His power. That problem seems to be more insurmountable that any problem with "stuff."

the first question, why not both?

Well, if both are eternal (easier to say than they "had no beginning"), I suppose that is possible, but then why does entropy exist on a physical level? I guess that's why I eliminate it outright.

As to your second statement. Show me some evidence of another universe, that doesn't contain entropy first.

And your last statement. Yes. I'm limiting myself to what I can observe here, because that's where I am. I have no way to observe anything else.

As to God. The first problem is what has no beginning (ie eternal). The second is the nature of that eternal being.

Where did he get all his knowledge and power from?

the answer of course is that is his nature, it always has been and always will be. The difficulty for finite beings is to understand the infinite. It simply can't be done (fully).

What we can say, is that no matter the source (stuff or being or any combination of those two), must contain more intelligence, information, power, and life than we have, because the created can't be greater than the creator.

[Mudcat]

The question is what "had no beginning?" Stuff or a Being. Really, those are our choices.

If we choose "stuff" (meaning all sorts of energy and things...) then we have to account for entropy and the fact that stuff (or things) are observed to run down. Stars and everything becomes less and less energized, and given enough time, energy would all run out. So, theoretically, if stuff was "eternal" then we wouldn't expect to see the eternal stuff continually losing energy.

If we choose a "being" or entity, then we'd at least have accounted for the entropy problem. But, then the conundrum of identity of this being, and the nagging problem of where the being came from, of course theoretically, if the being has eternally existed, then though we are still nagged with the question, we've accepted that it answers it in theory. As in theory, this "being" is the source of all energy as well.

Both answers have difficulties, but it seems to me that the one that says, "stuff is eternal" has greater difficulties.

Good post Hughes.

Emphasis mine, what compounds the difficulty of the problem of eternal stuff is that is implicitly, if not explicitly, points towards infinite time. I know it's been hashed about already, but the notion of an infinite series of events occurring "in time" prior to this moment is logically intractable.

I think the fact that it is logically impossible for time to be infinite before the present moment, is very good evidence for a beginning to time.

[cdowis]

You seem to forget that a huge problem with God always existing is where did He get all His knowledge and power from and then there is His unchangeability? His knowledge hasn't increased one iota throughout the eternities, nor has His power.

Your question is based on a false assumption. "Father", Deity, is a title, as is "Son", Creator,etc. It is possible to obtain that title, and one attribute of that position is "all knowledge". Your question only makes sense if you do not understand "how did you become an adult", "how did you learn to play the piano."

I guess I am puzzled why you are having difficulty with that concept, that an eternal being can obtain all knowledge. I know that I personally have no difficulty with it. God, Father, Creator are all titles. Christ is one with the Father, and has that title as well. Christ grew from grace to grace. And Christ promised that the disciples could be one, perfect in one, with the Father.

[Hughes]

Good post Hughes.

Emphasis mine, what compounds the difficulty of the problem of eternal stuff is that is implicitly, if not explicitly, points towards infinite time. I know it's been hashed about already, but the notion of an infinite series of events occurring "in time" prior to this moment is logically intractable.

I think the fact that it is logically impossible for time to be infinite before the present moment, is very good evidence for a beginning to time.

Thanks.

I agree with you, but how does one answer the question that God did "this or that" before "this other thing..." before creating the Universe, does that indicate that part of God's nature is time of some sort?

[Hughes]

Your question is based on a false assumption. "Father", Deity, is a title, as is "Son", Creator,etc. It is possible to obtain that title, and one attribute of that position is "all knowledge". Your question only makes sense if you do not understand "how did you become an adult", "how did you learn to play the piano."

I guess I am puzzled why you are having difficulty with that concept, that an eternal being can obtain all knowledge. I know that I personally have no difficulty with it. God, Father, Creator are all titles. Christ is one with the Father, and has that title as well. Christ grew from grace to grace. And Christ promised that the disciples could be one, perfect in one, with the Father.

Sounds like you're describing Process Theism. Which doesn't make sense to me at all. How can an infinite, perfect, eternal being, with all knowledge and power, learn anything?