Post Reply
7 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2007 - 7:48PM #1
TheWallflower
Posts: 125
The first cause argument says everything that has a beginning must have a cause.  The big bang is the universe's beginning, so the universe must have had a cause. 

The cause is God, who created the world supernaturally - that is, without use of the laws of physics.  This is so because the laws of physics are part of the universe, and so did not exist before the universe was around.  God created the laws of physics at the same time he created the universe.

Here's my question: cause and effect is a law of physics.  If cause and effect did not exist prior to the universe, then how does it make sense to say the universe must have a cause?  That is, how can one claim that the universe's existence is necessitated by a law of physics that didn't exist at the time?

Does this make sense, or am I being dumb?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2007 - 3:21AM #2
exploringinside
Posts: 1,294
[QUOTE=TheWallflower;161227]The first cause argument says everything that has a beginning must have a cause.  The big bang is the universe's beginning, so the universe must have had a cause. 

The cause is God, who created the world supernaturally - that is, without use of the laws of physics.  This is so because the laws of physics are part of the universe, and so did not exist before the universe was around.  God created the laws of physics at the same time he created the universe.

Here's my question: cause and effect is a law of physics.  If cause and effect did not exist prior to the universe, then how does it make sense to say the universe must have a cause?  That is, how can one claim that the universe's existence is necessitated by a law of physics that didn't exist at the time?

Does this make sense, or am I being dumb?[/QUOTE]

Wallflower,

You are not being dumb but you need to be a little careful with your wording and assumptions. Science has virtually given up identifying a Law of Causality; it just has too many exceptions at the thermodynamic, relativistic and quantum levels. When working with causal phenomena, they have hedged their bets by using terms like "probablistic" or varying degrees of "likelihood." In biology, cells are constantly mutating due to the effects of chemical imbalances, toxins, radiation, imperfect replication due to aging or just a failure by the previous cell to replicate perfectly; but unless one can carefully test and analyze every mutant cell, at the moment they come into existence, the exact cause for every mutation cannot be known.

Philosophical Causality can be even more complex because within the general form of A > B, there are also considerations for events, processes, states of being or states of affairs, properties, facts, variables, etc. We know it doesn't appear to be sensical to identify a cause of every auto accident as being Henry Ford's assembly line methods but the claim that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effects responsible for everything can lead us there, fallaciously.

To actually accept the existence of a First Cause, one must ignore the implications of infinite regression, overcome the contradiction of "something being created from nothing" and then argue that everything is happening as planned without being able to know the exact plan.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2007 - 7:46AM #3
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

exploringinside wrote:

To actually accept the existence of a First Cause, one must ignore the implications of infinite regression, overcome the contradiction of "something being created from nothing" and then argue that everything is happening as planned without being able to know the exact plan.



Easy!  For the Christian, anyway.  Should be easy for a scientist, also, to at least reach the conclusion as a possibility.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 8:37AM #4
lblount79
Posts: 6
If as you have asserted "Everything has a cause" then how can you exclude a God from that assertion?  If "everything" had a cause then a "God" being a subset of everything must have a cause.

The fact is that quantum observations: a. The temperature of a vaccum.  b. The existance of Hawking radiation.  Show that "everything" does not necessarily need a cause.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 12:17PM #5
teilhard
Posts: 51,889
[QUOTE=lblount79;164797]If as you have asserted "Everything has a cause" then how can you exclude a God from that assertion?  If "everything" had a cause then a "God" being a subset of everything must have a cause.

The fact is that quantum observations: a. The temperature of a vaccum.  b. The existance of Hawking radiation.  Show that "everything" does not necessarily need a cause.[/QUOTE]

On other Words,
"Reality"
is NOT so easily subsumed
( Reduced )
into Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 12:30PM #6
Ken
Posts: 33,859

teilhard wrote:

On other Words,
"Reality"
is NOT so easily subsumed
( Reduced )
into Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...

Quantum physics does not tell us that reality consists of anything more than matter, energy, space, and time. It merely tells us some interesting things about how matter, energy, space, and time behave.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 12:33PM #7
teilhard
Posts: 51,889
[QUOTE=Ken;165210]Quantum physics does not tell us that reality consists of anything more than matter, energy, space, and time. It merely tells us some interesting things about how matter, energy, space, and time behave.[/QUOTE]

Yes ...

Matter and Energy, Space and Time
"behave" in Ways
that make it very difficult
to "Reduce" all of "Reality"
into those seemingly simple Categories
AS  IF  they are "Defined" ...
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 1:51PM #8
ReasonOverFaith
Posts: 238
[QUOTE=teilhard;165218]Yes ...

Matter and Energy, Space and Time
"behave" in Ways
that make it very difficult
to "Reduce" all of "Reality"
into those seemingly simple Categories
AS  IF  they are "Defined" ...[/QUOTE]



Consider...



ONLY "Religions" and their adherents
presuppose to "Reduce" all of "Reality"
into simple "Categories"...
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 2:15PM #9
Kwinters
Posts: 22,596

Adelphe wrote:

Easy! For the Christian, anyway. Should be easy for a scientist, also, to at least reach the conclusion as a possibility.




That a simple mind can understand an easy answer doesn't mean the answer is right.

Re-read the second post.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook