The First Cause Argument

[Innominate]

The quotation thing is a little messed up there.

The statements regarding "anti-causing" don't work. You can define any cause in terms of there not being something to prevent it, i.e. the box didn't move because I pushed it, but because someone wasn't pushing on the other side. Radioactive nuclei emit particles when the forces attracting them to the other particles in the nucleus become weaker than the forces pushing them apart.

Extremely unstable nuclei might (such as those formed in nuclear reactors), but normal radioactive decay occurs when a particle "tunnels" through the potential well around the nucleus to the higher potential outside it. The particle doesn't actually pass through the intervening space at all, it simply moves to a new place.

Quantum mechanics is a way of statistically describing processes that we cannot observe without interfering with the system. They do not track all of the forces acting on a given particle at a given time, nor can they track the progress of a single particle.

Quantum mechanics is the fundamental description of how everything behaves. Macro-mechanics is a statistical aggregate of the effects of quantum mechanics. Also, nothing can track the progress of a single particle, because the uncertainty in its position multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum is always greater than hbar on 2. It is either spread out in space or time.
 

If the only thing required for a universe to appear is nothing actively preventing it then why aren't more universes appearing every instant?

There probably are but, being universes, we can't directly observe them. We have no more reason to believe that gods "just appear" than universes do.

The problem with applying the second law of thermodynamics to quantum physics is that a quantum system is not a closed system. A local decrease in entropy is allowed, so long as entropy increases elsewhere.

The only thing that keeps the second law of thermodynamics in quantum systems is a large enough 4D volume under consideration, because the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law and not a physical one.

That the Big Bang started as a singularity is irrelevant, since entropy would have to increase before the universe could reach that state.

And as I explained, entropy would still be increasing, because black holes have more entropy than is lost by absorbing their component matter.

Again on the second law of thermodynamics and how it affects the Big Bang, no there couldn't have been time before the Big Bang. When all of the matter in the universe was condensed into a single point this was the absolute minimum entropy possible, and since entropy must increase over time there could not have been a "before the big bang".

You should tell that to Stephen Hawking and the other physicists who have demonstrated that black holes, despite being a singularity, do not have a small entropy at all but a large one.

[ratcharmer]

I'm starting to feel like we're just going in circles here, arguing over progressively more and more obscure physics.

My point in explaining that Quantum mechanics cannot track a single particle & what was acting on it was not to say that something else could, but that one cannot support the claim that quantum mechanics does not follow causality, because we cannot tell what is acting on an individual particle.

Not being able to identify the cause of something and there being no cause are completely different things.

I can try to take you point for point if you really want me to, but this really isn't productive and we'll just end up arguing the same thing back and forth. We might as well be just saying  "yes" and "no" back and forth. It'd save us both time.

All I can tell you is that famous scientists & atheist apologists (is that the right term?) such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, when confronted with the first cause argument, did not attempt to argue based on "some things happen without cause" and instead fell back to the relatively weak "who made God" argument.

[Innominate]

I'm starting to feel like we're just going in circles here, arguing over progressively more and more obscure physics.

My point in explaining that Quantum mechanics cannot track a single particle & what was acting on it was not to say that something else could, but that one cannot support the claim that quantum mechanics does not follow causality, because we cannot tell what is acting on an individual particle.

Not being able to identify the cause of something and there being no cause are completely different things.

I can try to take you point for point if you really want me to, but this really isn't productive and we'll just end up arguing the same thing back and forth. We might as well be just saying  "yes" and "no" back and forth. It'd save us both time.

All I can tell you is that famous scientists & atheist apologists (is that the right term?) such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, when confronted with the first cause argument, did not attempt to argue based on "some things happen without cause" and instead fell back to the relatively weak "who made God" argument.

My point is that the entire argument is based on causality, which is in turn based on the human arrogance in believing that what they think occurs is how the entire universe and everything that could ever possibly exist functions. Causality is not universally applicable. At least the laws of electromagnetics actually apply to everything we know about.

Also, the "Who made God?" argument isn't weak. If it is possible for something like God to appear without being caused, then it is possible for other things as well. If it isn't, could somebody who uses the first cause argument offer a coherent explanation as to how God is able to exist without a cause while other things can't? "Because he's God", "Because that's how we defined him", etc. aren't valid explanations, falling to special pleading and begging the question respectively.

[ratcharmer]

My response to the "who made God?" argument is as follows:

If we have established that God can violate causality (cite omnipotence and the rest is easy) then He could then cause Himself to be, since cause no longer needs to proceed effect.

More simply put, If I had a time machine I could travel back to before I was born. I would then exist without ever having been caused to exist.

[Innominate]

My response to the "who made God?" argument is as follows:

If we have established that God can violate causality (cite omnipotence and the rest is easy) then He could then cause Himself to be, since cause no longer needs to proceed effect.

More simply put, If I had a time machine I could travel back to before I was born. I would then exist without ever having been caused to exist.

But we haven't established that God is omnipotent. This argument is about proving that God is necessary, and only logical necessities can be used to prove something is necessary. From the mathematics of modal logic, any postulate contingent on contingent objects is not necessary. In other words, unless you can prove that if God exists he must be able to subvert the laws that describe the universe, his omnipotence is contingent and therefore he is too.

[ratcharmer]

My point is that the entire argument is based on causality, which is in turn based on the human arrogance in believing that what they think occurs is how the entire universe and everything that could ever possibly exist functions. Causality is not universally applicable. At least the laws of electromagnetics actually apply to everything we know about.

Consider the underlined statement and how it relates to your entire argument.

There is no reason to suppose that in some cases the cause does not need to proceed the effects. In quantum mechanics we cannot observe what acts on an individual particle to trigger it's behavior. This is not sufficient reason to decide cause does not exist in this case.

Furthermore, although you have claimed several times that you can apply Quantum theory to macro objects, this transition has never been established by modern science. This is, in fact, exactly what the much sought after "Theory of Everything" is looking for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the cause of God, the reference to citing omnipotence was to link the entity implied in this argument to God, not to presuppose omnipotence. Being able to violate causality is a major part of what this argument implies about the creator of the universe.

[Innominate]

My point is that the entire argument is based on causality, which is in turn based on the human arrogance in believing that what they think occurs is how the entire universe and everything that could ever possibly exist functions. Causality is not universally applicable. At least the laws of electromagnetics actually apply to everything we know about.

Consider the underlined statement and how it relates to your entire argument.

There is no reason to suppose that in some cases the cause does not need to proceed the effects. In quantum mechanics we cannot observe what acts on an individual particle to trigger it's behavior. This is not sufficient reason to decide cause does not exist in this case.

We do not have sufficient reason to suppose that causality is a universal and binding rule. Just because it's useful for everyday physics doesn't mean it holds true unfailingly everywhere, even in conditions where most laws of physics break down (like, say, singularities).

Furthermore, although you have claimed several times that you can apply Quantum theory to macro objects, this transition has never been established by modern science. This is, in fact, exactly what the much sought after "Theory of Everything" is looking for.

The theory of everything is to unify the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear) in one theory, not to link quantum mechanics to classical mechanics. The only dilemma facing quantum mechanics today is that we haven't yet unified quantum mechanics with general relativity's idea that gravity is deformed space-time.

Quantum mechanics does actually apply to macroscopic objects. It's the entire point of the correspondence principle, and Ehrenfest's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest%27s_theorem) showed that quantum mechanics slides perfectly into classical mechanics as the numbers become large enough. Not only has the transition been established by modern science, it's been established for around 80 years.

As to the cause of God, the reference to citing omnipotence was to link the entity implied in this argument to God, not to presuppose omnipotence. Being able to violate causality is a major part of what this argument implies about the creator of the universe.

But why is this ability peculiar to God? Why cannot the universe create itself?

[ratcharmer]

As to the cause of God, the reference to citing omnipotence was to link the entity implied in this argument to God, not to presuppose omnipotence. Being able to violate causality is a major part of what this argument implies about the creator of the universe.

But why is this ability peculiar to God? Why cannot the universe create itself?

This is interesting, because I think this sort of applies both here and in the responses thread (with regards to the references to the work of Dr. Persinger).

At what point does something cease to be a measurement of a phenomena often attributed to God (or gods) and at what point are you measuring what God is doing?

I would argue that just as understanding how the nerves in my arm work doesn't mean my arm doesn't act in accordance with my will, understanding the universe doesn't mean it doesn't obey God's will.

I know I sort of skipped over a lot of your post, and I apologize for that. I've become rather busy recently so I haven't had time to give as thorough response as your post deserves, so I settled on responding to part of it. I'll try to get back to the rest later.

[Innominate]

As to the cause of God, the reference to citing omnipotence was to link the entity implied in this argument to God, not to presuppose omnipotence. Being able to violate causality is a major part of what this argument implies about the creator of the universe.

But why is this ability peculiar to God? Why cannot the universe create itself?

This is interesting, because I think this sort of applies both here and in the responses thread (with regards to the references to the work of Dr. Persinger).

At what point does something cease to be a measurement of a phenomena often attributed to God (or gods) and at what point are you measuring what God is doing?

I would argue that just as understanding how the nerves in my arm work doesn't mean my arm doesn't act in accordance with my will, understanding the universe doesn't mean it doesn't obey God's will.

It's valid point to make, but one that is also unfalsifiable. We can't prove what the "ultimate motivator" is for anything; my hand pushes a pencil but my mind controls my hand. Who's to say that the universe isn't similarly powered by another, greater force? I find it philosophically distasteful, personally, simply because it raises a further question: who's to say that there isn't another, greater force controlling my mind as well? If we allow the 'unseen mover' to move one thing, why not other things? At that point it comes down to whatever you personally decide is the case, or enter into the murky world of trying to understand what a being - so huge that we are like ants to it, unable to see anything but its effects - is thinking.

I know I sort of skipped over a lot of your post, and I apologize for that. I've become rather busy recently so I haven't had time to give as thorough response as your post deserves, so I settled on responding to part of it. I'll try to get back to the rest later.

Take as much time as you need. Though in a week or so I will probably be leaving the forum, because Elements has lost its sparkle for me (too long with too few spins from FGs, and also my deck is fully upgraded), so you may just get the last word

[figmentofyourimagination]

Hahaha!
Funny.

[ratcharmer]

I'm sorry to hear you're going. It's been interesting talking to you.

On the theory of everything, I must apologize. I was duped by a source that was only semi-reputable.

As far as the unfalsifiable nature of a universal motivator, this is only unfalsifiable because science cannot define consciousness. (the Turning test only determines if a machine can fool a human into believing they are typing to another human)

More simply put, I can't prove that you aren't a computer program that just sounds like a person. That doesn't mean I'm going to assume you don't exist.

Thus, if I refer to some of the things discussed in the "responses" thread, we have billions of people who believe they have had contact with an entity, and even formed very close relationships with said entity. We can now observe some phenomena that behave in ways similar to how the entity is described, and on top of that we have a beginning of the universe that requires something that posses several traits that have been traditionally ascribed to that entity.

I feel like after that I'd just sort of be sticking my head in the sand if I didn't at least consider said entity.

I know that probably didn't answer all your questions, and we've been arguing back and forth over several of the points, but I thought it'd be helpful to include some sort of big picture summary. From my view at least.

@figment: . . . um . . . I'm glad we amuse you?