The First Cause

[mfbukowski]

Deleted.

It's pointless to argue this further.

[Questing Beast]

It always is, pointless I mean. Unless the point is to show up, yet again, that none of us overlap metaphysically, therefore our concepts on "God" are always going to be different from everyone else....

[mfbukowski]

It always is, pointless I mean. Unless the point is to show up, yet again, that none of us overlap metaphysically, therefore our concepts on "God" are always going to be different from everyone else....

The discussion wouldn't be pointless, if it was happening, but you are using one language to discuss it and I am using another, and there is no discussion happening because I don't have a clue what you are saying and you don't have a clue what I am saying.

I think we are actually close on a lot of issues but we will never know it because of the jibberish (to both of us) in between.

[Questing Beast]

"Jibberish" is created by the judgment of the receiver. I don't find your reasoning jibberish.

What I believe is going on with religion is largely overlapping truth, just packaged differently. The vast majority of "differences" are only perceived as such because most people have not advanced beyond their notions, or to put this allegorically, they keep looking through their "glass darkly" at everyone else and their beliefs....

[mfbukowski]

"Jibberish" is created by the judgment of the receiver. I don't find your reasoning jibberish.

What I believe is going on with religion is largely overlapping truth, just packaged differently. The vast majority of "differences" are only perceived as such because most people have not advanced beyond their notions, or to put this allegorically, they keep looking through their "glass darkly" at everyone else and their beliefs....

You've proven my point.

That's what I thought I said, and yet you take issue with it.

[thews]

I started a similar thread a good while back. What does Mormon theology say regarding the Aristotelian concept of a first cause? Is there room for it or not? Is God the "first cause" in the Mormon view? Can He be as a physical being?

Thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&autorefresh=true&hash=item1e636f4b2f&item=130517257007&nma=true&pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&rt=nc&si=vKjyJmH1YNAoIB%252FBWjUeIg3mN40%253D

[TAO]

thews, that is actually the evidence against first cause... see the last bit, 'a self-moving substance is the great first cause and governor of all things'. That is what it precisely means not to have a first cause. It must have things before it to make it move at all, I think.

Could be wrong I suppose, but that is my opinion about it.

[mfbukowski]

thews, that is actually the evidence against first cause... see the last bit, 'a self-moving substance is the great first cause and governor of all things'. That is what it precisely means not to have a first cause. It must have things before it to make it move at all, I think.

Could be wrong I suppose, but that is my opinion about it.

To be honest, it sounds quite confused.

What is this "substance" made of? If it is not made of anything how is it a "substance"? And how did it get to be "self-moving", thereby defying the laws of Newtonian (which were true at the time) physics? But perhaps the "substance" is an idea. How do ideas move things?

"True at the time"?

Yes, truth changes. Good old Pluto again as an example, it used to be a planet you know, also the "discovery" of America, or the "discovery" of any new species.

Is a statement about an undiscovered species "true" before the species is discovered? "The Whatsis Butterfly is blue with white stripes and pink polka dots."

On the other hand, Bro. Pratt intuitively got the idea that the universe had to be in motion- and eternally changing- THAT is the "self-moving substance".

In fact there is no universe to speak of until we speak of it- and we humans (God at the head) are the ones who give it order by speaking it into existence. (Abraham 4)

[dougtheavenger]

I started a similar thread a good while back. What does Mormon theology say regarding the Aristotelian concept of a first cause? Is there room for it or not? Is God the "first cause" in the Mormon view? Can He be as a physical being?

Thoughts?

In the beginning there was no beginning and we are here because we are here.

[Mudcat]

@ the OP

I think the only way God could be the "first cause" in an LDS view, is if you put "first cause" in quotations. By doing so it gives "first cause" a special pleading of sorts or concessional view of it at least. In that God could be the "first cause" of something. In that sense, I suppose you could say that. But it wouldn't be accurate really. Especially given that couplet that there was a point when God was not God but rather a man.

In the sense that God is the first cause of all, then I don't think that would fit in the LDS paragon.

Ultimately, reductio ad absurdum, the notion of an infinite regress would seem to negate a necessity or actual possibility of a true first cause.

That being said, I think there is a first cause and it is God and the fact that LDS and this notion of an infinite regress LDS hold to literally drives me bonkers...

[Eldwynn]

I was thinking that the better question might be, "Why does the universe exist as it does?" In other words, what is the cause of the universal constants? That is the biggest piece of evidence, I think, for the need to explain the universe via an intelligent cause.

This reasoning (somehow) convinced Antony Flew to Deism I think. I don't understand it at all.

We have no clue how much those universal constants COULD vary. It may be that they are all dependent on each other. Furthermore, even if the odds of them all happening at once are astronomical (haha what an awesome word to use), then you are still assuming this is the ONLY universe there is- which the jury is still out on. If that's the "biggest" piece of evidence, then I think the whole idea is pretty shoddy.

[ERayR]

To reitterate what I have posted before: First Cause is meaningless unless you chop infinity/eternity up into pieces. When taken as a whole infinity/eternity precludes a first cause simply because there is always something before. It is only when you carve out pieces (mortal probation, etc.) that you can assign a first. If you go beyound that you are back to infinity/eternity with something before.

[Questing Beast]

...

We have no clue how much those universal constants COULD vary.

Sure we have a clue: our 'satiable imaginations offer virtually endless possibilities. That you or someone else might relegate this fancy to mere make believe begs the question as to why we have this capacity to imagine in the first place. It seems inimical to mere survival. Imagine a Neanderthal walking along, trailing his flint-tipped spear, as he contemplates existence in a distracted reverie; only to be jumped by a saber-tooth tiger. And yes, we do have evidence of our "brand" of thinking going back some 800K years. Our species derives from the first "thinkers" that buried their dead ritually and created complex tools, etc. And all of this appeared all at once: in "an evolutionary eyeblink" as it were (Marc Hauser). There is no demonstrable reason why our unique sapience should just suddenly be here. But imagination is what separates us from the other mammals. And I don't know about you, but I can imagine quite a lot of different "possibilities" for alternate universes. I maintain that our imaginations, finite though they obviously are, derive from actual reality, somewhere. In other words, it is impossible to imagine the impossible (no matter how self-contradictory that assertion appears to be).

It may be that they are all dependent on each other. Furthermore, even if the odds of them all happening at once are astronomical (haha what an awesome word to use), then you are still assuming this is the ONLY universe there is- which the jury is still out on. If that's the "biggest" piece of evidence, then I think the whole idea is pretty shoddy.

What evidence? You are unclear. Existence itself is evidence of a greater, even infinite reality. And as I said, sapient imagination transcends all the apparent reality we have observed thus far....

[Questing Beast]

To reitterate what I have posted before: First Cause is meaningless unless you chop infinity/eternity up into pieces. When taken as a whole infinity/eternity precludes a first cause simply because there is always something before. It is only when you carve out pieces (mortal probation, etc.) that you can assign a first. If you go beyound that you are back to infinity/eternity with something before.

Outside of space-time, there is no before and after, only NOW. Space-time then becomes a mere construct of that NOW state; which proves the reality of its sapience. As there is no logical way to wrap our mind around an endless series of causes and effects (the very series requiring a cause for IT to exist in the first place), the concept of space-time (linear cause and effect, before and after) is "unnatural". Or in other words, space-time is "necessary" for an empirical universe to exist and bears all the evidence of a deliberate construct; this of course requires the sapience of "God": nothing else will do to explain it....

[mfbukowski]

Outside of space-time, there is no before and after, only NOW. Space-time then becomes a mere construct of that NOW state; which proves the reality of its sapience. As there is no logical way to wrap our mind around an endless series of causes and effects (the very series requiring a cause for IT to exist in the first place), the concept of space-time (linear cause and effect, before and after) is "unnatural". Or in other words, space-time is "necessary" for an empirical universe to exist and bears all the evidence of a deliberate construct; this of course requires the sapience of "God": nothing else will do to explain it....

Close.

Notice you are human, so the only evidence of a "construct" you can know is in your human brain, which constructed it all, so it is no wonder you see a "construct". You can't take off those "rose colored glasses" so you think everything is rose colored.

Of course God's human brain did it before you did, though. You're caught in a loop, logically. All you can think of was something thought of by a human, nothing "more".

[Mordecai]

then you are still assuming this is the ONLY universe there is-

I assumed no such thing. The problem with your implied line of reasoning, that if there are multiple universes, clearly you've destroyed the strong anthropic principle, is a flawed one.

The issue is that the universal constants aren't a given in the slightest, first of all. Yes, astronomical is a good word but it's an understatement. If you look at the numbers, you really are going to need infinite universes, each of which varying one from another in their constants. Now, if there are infinite universes, you have to ask why there are infinite universes? Then you have to ask, what about the nature of an existence where you have infinite universes and each vary one from another in their constants.

You would still have a nearly identical question to, "Why does the universe exist as it does," which is, "Why are there infinite universes with varying universal constants?" You still have a set of complex rules that need a cause. You've simply pushed the problem back instead of solving it. You can't take for granted that infinite universes would exist. What's causing them to exist? What's causing them to have varying universal constants?

That's assuming there are infinite universes, a premise for which you have little or no evidence.

Also, Flew was convinced by a number of things, but the most powerful one is probably the issue of first cause. You should read his book.

[Eldwynn]

I assumed no such thing. The problem with your implied line of reasoning, that if there are multiple universes, clearly you've destroyed the strong anthropic principle, is a flawed one.

The issue is that the universal constants aren't a given in the slightest, first of all. Yes, astronomical is a good word but it's an understatement. If you look at the numbers, you really are going to need infinite universes, each of which varying one from another in their constants. Now, if there are infinite universes, you have to ask why there are infinite universes? Then you have to ask, what about the nature of an existence where you have infinite universes and each vary one from another in their constants.

You would still have a nearly identical question to, "Why does the universe exist as it does," which is, "Why are there infinite universes with varying universal constants?" You still have a set of complex rules that need a cause. You've simply pushed the problem back instead of solving it. You can't take for granted that infinite universes would exist. What's causing them to exist? What's causing them to have varying universal constants?

That's assuming there are infinite universes, a premise for which you have little or no evidence.

Also, Flew was convinced by a number of things, but the most powerful one is probably the issue of first cause. You should read his book.

Then you are assuming that the constants must vary. We don't know why they are set that way. Maybe it's a god, or maybe it is just some law of physics that just makes them a product. I don't understand how it is evidence for anything. Obviously this universe is favorable to life, because we are here to answer the question. If it wasn't- we wouldn't be here. What exactly is the argument?

[Mordecai]

Then you are assuming that the constants must vary.

What? Where did you get that? It's the secularists that require variation in the universal constants for each of the (hypothetical) infinite universes. See, if they all had universal constants like ours, that still appears way too intelligently designed, each for the purpose of sustaining complex life. They can't have that.

Obviously this universe is favorable to life, because we are here to answer the question. If it wasn't- we wouldn't be here. What exactly is the argument?

This is an absurd response that has grown tired. The issue is that there are so many reasons for us to not be here. For example, if a person is put in front of a firing squad but not one bullet hits him or her, it's quite obvious the person still being alive requires an explanation. You might say, if that was you, "That's not evidence of anything! I'm here to answer the question, so clearly, this situation I was in where a firing squad missed me completely is favorable to my still being here! There's no mystery!"

Not good reasoning. There are seemingly infinite reasons for us to not be here, but we are still here. That's the mystery and the question that demands an answer.

[Eldwynn]

300 sextillion is pretty much infinity when you are 23-my bad. Maybe to you old timers it's more. I still don't see the problem. By "vary" I meant that each is not linked to the other in any way. Which means the odds of one happening are not dependent on the odds of the other. I'm not convinced that's true, and I am not going to throw up my hands and say "god did it" because I don't know the answer. Your God of the gaps is getting pretty old. Like... 250,000 years old

[Mordecai]

300 sextillion is pretty much infinity when you are 23-my bad.

So that's a number you can comprehend? It might as well be infinite, for the purposes of discussion. It's bigger than any human being can comprehend. Putting the label 300 sextillion makes it sound more manageable to you, but that's just a word. Infinite. 300 sextillion. Who cares? Might as well be the same to our limited comprehension.

Your God of the gaps is getting pretty old.

God of the gaps? This shows extremely poor comprehension of what the argument is. It's clear I'm wasting my time trying to explain it, probably because you don't want to understand. No effort. Intellectually lazy, I'm guessing.

How is this a, "We don't know what happened, so God did it?" My analogy was apt. If the firing squad misses the person, the cause is clearly intelligence. Since the universal constants "missed" us, kind of like the bullets missed the person in the example above, clearly the intelligent cause must be a transcendent first cause of immeasurable intelligence. That could be termed God, although you don't have to use that term.

[Eldwynn]

So that's a number you can comprehend? It might as well be infinite, for the purposes of discussion. It's bigger than any human being can comprehend.

God of the gaps? This shows extremely poor comprehension of what the argument is. It's clear I'm wasting my time trying to explain it, probably because you don't want to understand. No effort. Intellectually lazy, I'm guessing.

How is this a, "We don't know what happened, so God did it?" My analogy was apt. If the firing squad misses the person, the cause is clearly intelligence. Since the universal constants "missed" us, kind of like the bullets missed the person in the example above, clearly the intelligent cause must be a transcendent first cause of immeasurable intelligence. That could be termed God, although you don't have to use that term.

I don't see it. If the bullet misses me in the firing squad, then the gun probably didn't work. Even if those odds are one in 10^27, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That seems more likely than invoking something that we can not see. Its not out of laziness, its out of reason. If you can point to god in a non-personal way, then I will look, but simply pointing to a problem that can't be solved, doesn't prove anything.

It's like saying that Newtons two body problem proved god. It didn't. I just don't find the reasoning convincing.

And even given that the intelligence is out there- you still say NOTHING about what it is. Intelligent design really adds nothing to the story. It's not science.

By the way, 300 sextillion is the number of stars in our universe. I don't even want to calculate the number of planets. This is why I don't really care if the odds of life happening is "one in 100 trillion" because if it is, that means there is TONS of life out there.

[Mordecai]

I don't see it. If the bullet misses me in the firing squad, then the gun probably didn't work.

A firing squad has multiple people, meaning multiple guns would have to have been shoddy. That in itself would require a very good explanation. Would you assume that wasn't a conspiracy? What are the chances of multiple guns being so off, that the entire firing squad misses?

Even if those odds are one in 10^27, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It does mean you'd be a fool to just say, "It doesn't mean anything; you have no reason to believe the firing squad missed on purpose." If you see sticks lined up on a beach to write out a Shakespearean sonnet, do you just say, "There's no mystery. The wind blew them there or an earthquake shook them into place?" Do you just assume no one put those sticks in place, that it was accident?

That seems more likely than invoking something that we can not see.

I can't see the Big Bang, but I think it happened. Crazy, huh? What a fool I am! I have never seen Abraham Lincoln, but I think he existed, too. How unreasonable is that?

And even given that the intelligence is out there- you still say NOTHING about what it is. Intelligent design really adds nothing to the story. It's not science.

I forgot that "adding nothing to the story" means it's not science. Where do you guys get these absurd new definitions of science that conveniently exclude ID arguments? That said, it involves a degree of philosophy. As Einstein said, as quoted in Flu's There is a God, "The man [or woman] of science, a bad philosopher makes."

[Questing Beast]

Close.

Notice you are human, so the only evidence of a "construct" you can know is in your human brain, which constructed it all, so it is no wonder you see a "construct". You can't take off those "rose colored glasses" so you think everything is rose colored.

Of course God's human brain did it before you did, though. You're caught in a loop, logically. All you can think of was something thought of by a human, nothing "more".

"God's human brain?" That is a significant expression. Think about what it implies: the ONLY sapient species we know of is us, and that includes anything we've found that predates us. There is this single class of hominids that came along all at once, and we are the only survivor species. If we are the ONLY sapient thinkers, then the Necessary Cause made us like him/her/itself; at least so far as we know. In the thinking department at least that is what sets us apart as unique from other animals. It is a significant uniqueness, not at all the same as comparing number of legs or vertebrae or any other physical traits that differentiate animals. Brain power is totally "other" when we are making comparisons. And ours is so far above the next closest species' as to not even bear comparing. So the evidence says that our "human thinking" is intended to relate back to "God" in this unique, companionship way. "God" is not a homo sapien; that is to say, "God" is not only that; but I believe that "God" manifests this way, for us. And if there are any other sapient beings "out there" that are wildly different physically and mentally from us, then "God" (I am sure) manifests as one them, for them, also....

[mfbukowski]

"God's human brain?" That is a significant expression. Think about what it implies: the ONLY sapient species we know of is us, and that includes anything we've found that predates us. There is this single class of hominids that came along all at once, and we are the only survivor species. If we are the ONLY sapient thinkers, then the Necessary Cause made us like him/her/itself; at least so far as we know. In the thinking department at least that is what sets us apart as unique from other animals. It is a significant uniqueness, not at all the same as comparing number of legs or vertebrae or any other physical traits that differentiate animals. Brain power is totally "other" when we are making comparisons. And ours is so far above the next closest species' as to not even bear comparing. So the evidence says that our "human thinking" is intended to relate back to "God" in this unique, companionship way. "God" is not a homo sapien; that is to say, "God" is not only that; but I believe that "God" manifests this way, for us. And if there are any other sapient beings "out there" that are wildly different physically and mentally from us, then "God" (I am sure) manifests as one them, for them, also....

I have always thought it was an interesting line where Satan says he is "only doing what has been done it other worlds".

I don't like the word "manifests" but we are speaking here at the limits of language anyway.

Let's just say that I am certain that beings from other worlds are correct in seeing God as one of themselves. That leaves a lot of leeway in interpretation.

Of course some of those "other worlds" might be/have been right here. I recall as a child every other book or TV program seemed to be have the word "world" in the title, as "The Wonderful World of Disney", "The World of Science", "The World of Dinosaurs" etc.

[ERayR]

Outside of space-time, there is no before and after, only NOW. Space-time then becomes a mere construct of that NOW state; which proves the reality of its sapience. As there is no logical way to wrap our mind around an endless series of causes and effects (the very series requiring a cause for IT to exist in the first place), the concept of space-time (linear cause and effect, before and after) is "unnatural". Or in other words, space-time is "necessary" for an empirical universe to exist and bears all the evidence of a deliberate construct; this of course requires the sapience of "God": nothing else will do to explain it....

First you have to show me there is an "outside of space and time". You are trying to approach infinity/eternity with a finite mindset.