First Cause -- a simple question
Offline If, for the sake of argument, we grant the validity of the argument that the universe must have a first cause, it prompts a very important question. How do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? Perhaps the first cause, in creating the universe, extinguished itself.
[Edit: I must rephrase this question slightly, as it has been correctly pointed out that IF the multiverse is the cause of the universe, THEN the multiverse must still exist. Please read the question as: Assuming the first cause to be some form of sentient being, how do we reach the conclusion that the first cause is still in existence? If you intend to propose the multiverse as a sentient being, please justify this.]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
The difference between mine and say ESP and such is that mine is actually falsafiable and open to revision, as is digital physics, and I can think of several different ways to make it falsafiable.
I created a topic about that, and I'll look over it again. I'm pretty sure you complained about how I brought in the multiverse(which in of it self can be confirmed).
ESP and telekinesis are testable. I spent many hours staring at an aluminum pinwheel balanced on a needle in a sealed jar during my misspent youth. "Move... move... move... MOVE!!! No, no, no, don't try to force it... just be the thing... be one with the thing... did it move?! Nope... Move... move... imagine the atoms, use misunderstanding of quantum physics to visualize... create impulse for it to move... move... move... I wonder what's on TV..."
Moving on... am I mistaken in thinking the original argument relates to the sort of prime mover argument formulated by Aquinas, as referenced in The God Delusion? That is, there must be a first cause to end regress, and we call it 'god?' That is, even if there were an end to regress, what reason do we have to assume properties like sentience -- or even, as you point out, continuing relevance?
That's perfectly fair. Truth be known, the only one doing any suppressing here is me. I am just a girl, I dropped out to take care of my three kids and 82 year old grandma better, and because it felt right to do so, thus I'm not affiliated or associated or honoured in any order. And it is entirely utterly and deliberately my fault.
As for my work, you have every right not to believe me, but here's how it is. I have never submitted anything to anyone. Not because I don't intend to, but because the mass of what I have to sumbit at the moment is a bunch of good simple inferences and a bit of supporting argument, loosely organised and skeletal in substance. It's good, but it needs the weight of the great unfinished proof (which is a set of equations that I don't work on nearly enough as I probably "should"
or it's nothing more than some supportable ideas, lightweight easy conclusions that I've always been sure most could come to themselves. it doesn't seem that great to me, honestly.
Well from my perspective I'm not fighting to defend implausible ideas, but to crush implausible ideas under the weight of, what I think are, better ones. I claim a neutral ground, if the best ideas I could come up with invalidated all possibility of a spiritual being, don't mistake it, I'd argue that. I genuinely believe that this day and age calls for serious discourse in the general community to put an end to dangerous and unhealthy superstition. Even more than I'd ever care about getting a laurel, IF I have any chance of that which remains to be seen.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
But one should remember, I am not making a science claim, I am making a claim based on science.
I admit the claim itself is not testable, however the base of it is. Falsify the science of which it's based, and the claim collapses
I wasn't addressing your thesis just then, but clarifying the intent of the question for myself (which makes me look redundant, but it's better than missing the point).
To your claim I would only wonder why the study of physics creates a proclivity for pantheism and deism. Have I merely, in my hugger mugger existence as a graphic designer and filmmaker, been deprived of all the breathless awe I'm owed by the cosmos?
I want my awe.
Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku
Warped Passages by Lisa Randell
God Theory by Bernard Haisch
Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller
ohhhhhhhhhh
awwwwwwweeeeeee
I've read this book and have a copy. Its very good, but it is about something completely different. Its about evolutionary biology and molecular biology, which is why I enjoyed it so much. We aren't debating evolution here, I don't think anyone in the room is that stupid...
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I didn't recommend it for the evolution, I did it for the Theistic part of it.
I'm currently reading it, but it may take me a while to finish.
rockin' prose, cernunnos.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com