Megatron

Ok... seriously.

I should probably research this, but I'm lazy, and I'm looking more for the layman's approach. (Use the KISS method, people: Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

My question is this:

Does there necessarily have to be a "first cause" for the universe? Couldn't it have always existed?

If there does absolutely have to be one, why?

I see, from my obviously limited knowledge, that it's just as possible that the universe has always been as it is that the universe was created or somehow blinked into existence.

But, then again, I'm not exactly a scientist. I'm a friggin computer nerd.

Thoughts?

tronvillain

Well, if you mean space-time as a whole, there's no apparent reason it can't simply exist. Of course, it wouldn't accurately be described as having "always existed" since that would require external time.

Synaesthesia

There can be, by definition, no time at which the universe did not exist. How could it have been caused since causes come before effects in time?

To account for the universe will require a fundamentally different approach to searching for what questions to ask about it. Intuitive notions such as causation and intentionality are simply insufficient.

So what if God (rather than the big bang) is the beginning of the universe? The question is why anything is here in the first place is totally untouched. (As I suggested eariler, we need to better understand what the questions we ask actually mean.)

Bill

Like most deep philosophical questions, you immediately get into trouble by failing to define precisely what you mean when you use the word "universe." My answers will vary according to just what you mean by that word.

Most people mean "the consequences of the so-called 'Big Bang'" when they use the word "universe." For those people, the answer would be "yes, there must be a cause of the 'Big Bang,' but that cause would not necessarily be a 'First Cause' as that term is usually understood, except within the narrow idea of just such a cause occurring prior to 'T=0' time for the 'Big Bang' itself."

In other words, "T=0" time for the "Big Bang" clearly demarcates a beginning, of some sort. Since I reject the idea of "creation ex nihilo" as a matter of course, there must necessarily be some THING out of which the "Big Bang" was "created" (or "caused"). At this moment in time, we have nothing but conjecture about the nature of this THING out of which the "Big Bang" emerges. But if your reference for the word "universe" is the "Big Bang," then, necessarily, the "First Cause" of the "universe" ("Big Bang") is this THING out of which the "Big Bang" emerges (somehow).

=====

Personally, I prefer to redefine the word "universe" so that it retains its sense of "universality." In this case, the word "universe" must necessarily encompass the THING (referred to, above), plus the "Big Bang," plus anything else that may resemble the "Big Bang" in any way, plus everything else necessary to the existence of any of them. This would define the "universe" to comprise "everything that exists in reality" (or some such).

With the "universe" defined in this fashion, it seems logical that no external "input" can be obtained, and thus this "universe" must necessarily be "eternal" (it has always existed, for all "time," whatever "time" means once you get outside of the "Big Bang").

=====

But, in a deeper sense, your question is, and will always be, unanswerable. The reason for this is explained in Jim Still's essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">The Mental Discomfort of “Why?”</a> As Still describes Wittgenstein's conclusion: Whatever you define the word "universe" to mean, the answer to WHY must necessarily lie outside of that "universe." In other words, there can be no answer to WHY because there can be nothing outside of a properly-defined "universe." The absence of an answer to the WHY question necessarily implies that there cannot be any actual "First Cause" because any such "First Cause" would necessarily be the answer to the WHY question.

=====

So, logically speaking, there cannot ever be a "First Cause" to the "universe" defined as all that has existed at some point in time. Any such "First Cause" must necessarily exist outside of time, and therefore (by definition) does not actually exist.

This idea is attacked as "nihilism" by the God-believers. However, it merely requires mankind to invent our own purposes for our own lives rather than to attempt to discern some larger eternal purpose, which necessarily cannot exist. This is summed up by my favorite quote from Will Durant: == Bill

Friar Bellows

You are to be commended for your honesty. Laziness is a vice with which I am intimately familiar.

I don't know how one could possibly know the answer to that question. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is doing a disservice to science. We might have a speck of a clue one day, but at the moment we're as blind as a cluster of blind hedgehogs in a bag.

On the other hand, our theories currently have a little bit to say about it. One idea is that the universe sprung into existence spontaneously, and with it came the entities of time and space, or spacetime. Within the framework of these theories, the question of what came "before" may be meaningless.

Again, your humility is refeshing and to be admired. Now, all you have to do is to get over your laziness. When you do, let me know how you did it. Then we can both sit down and actually learn this stuff properly. Or maybe I'll just become a crackpot: it's so much easier that way.

Francois Tremblay

There has to be a "first cause" because infinite regress is impossible. It's impossible for anything to "blink into existence" because of the law of non-contradiction. Simple logic.

Here's a good article for you about the use of logics in determining the nature of the universe.

<a href="http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ron_Merrill_writes/Miscelaneous/APrioriPhysics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ron_Merrill_writes/Miscelaneous/APrioriPhysics.htm</a>

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Pennywise the clown

Beep! Beep! Good Friar Bellows and the Angel of Zero! I too am a fellow sloth!

Many, many people claim to have had a religious experience. Are all the adherents of all the great religions dellusional? This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery. In my opinion, this makes the "religious experience" outside of the scope of science or philosophy. Afterall, if a God did not want to be found by science or philosophy, He/She/It could make it all but impossible.

Suffice to say that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy or science or religions. Therefore, it comes down to a leap of faith.

Jonesy

Yes, there does, because EVERYTHING HAS A BEGINNING. If you DEFINE 'something' as already existing and can point your finger towards it (eg. a bird on a tree or the universe or a human being), then simple logic suggests that 'for any "thing" (dead or alive), there was a point in time when that something did not YET exist'. For example, EVERYTHING currently on Earth had a starting point someday in the (distant) past.

Try reading (and not dismissing as some people have already done on these boards) the following book. It gives 'another point of view':

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a>

I hope there are some people left on these forums that support different opinions, no matter how different they are.

Anyone can say whatever they want about something, but AFTER they look/examine it. So, please, just have a read of the book above and maybe then we can have an interesting discussion.

Or, if you don't want to read the book, I am hereby accepting a challenge from anyone that I can WIN the argument (using logic ofcourse) that "everything needs a beginning". Even the Universe and the Creator of the Universe himself.

Anyone willing to take me on? I'm willing to start a separate post for just this debate. And for some 'edgy' people, I'll stop referring to books and articles, because all I seem to get is 'he's from a cult' comments.

Let the debate begin. Anyone up for it?

Pennywise the clown

Thiaoouba, have faith.



Edited to add: in regards to your book, it's hard to polish a turd.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Pennywise the clown ]</p>

Jonesy

I don't understand your comment's relevance to my previous post