Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[attofishpi]

Both God and Universe are causes.
The distinction between caused and uncaused causes is entirely yours. And unsubstantiated.

It's logically inescapable, actually. But I see we're just disagreeing about that.

Well Mr Can, you haven't demonstrated that it is "logically inescapable" that there was a 'first cause. It is logically inescapable that -1+1=0, which is more or less Lawrence Krauss's argument. It is therefore conceivable that 0, an actual void, inevitably disintegrates into matter and antimatter, without any 'first cause'. The fact is, we simply don't know how the universe began, and it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part that some lovely bloke had a role in 'creation'.

..ah, darn it, i thought it was this bloke:-

[surreptitious57]

So the test I proposed was actually empirical - perfectly scientific

Except that a first cause is actually non scientific due to quantum mechanics
That states absolute nothing cannot exist beyond an infinitesimal time period

And so the eternal pre first cause state can never exist because it would very quickly be violated by quantum fluctuations
You could deny the existence of such a state but that would be the same as infinite regress [ there would be no beginning ]

[surreptitious57]

You need a state of non existence before a first cause otherwise it cannot be known to be a first cause
So there has to be a reference point which is relative to the cause in question and this is non existence

But if non existence cannot be maintained according to quantum mechanics then the notion of a first cause is falsified
Absolute nothing cannot be maintained at either the quantum or classical level so something must always have existed

[Dontaskme]

The uncaused cause

How can a cause be uncaused ? By defining something as a cause it logically follows
that something else must have preceded it - otherwise it makes absolutely no sense

The answer is simple, a cause that has no known causer must by defintion be uncaused. Both 'cause and uncaused' is actually the same phenomena because how can a 'cause' ever 'uncause' itself? it can't, the 'effect' is instantaneous...and that's why there can only be infinite causes and effects which are the same phenomena happening simultaneously in the intant, each giving birth to the other. And this phenomena is 'Knowledge known' via concept as and through mental activity.

Now, looking further into this we then must ask ourself what caused the mind that is capable of being aware of concepts?
Forget about what caused God or what caused the Universe..What actually caused the Mind? aka KNOWLEDGE?

This is easy to comprehend because concepts/knowledge is within the realm of dualities, else what would the word ''Cause'' even mean to the logical Mind? 'Cause and Uncaused' is a phenomena of the split Mind. And looking deeper anything of the Mind is an illusion...albeit a very convincing illusion according to Einstein.

When you think about it ..it's only the Mind that is causing anything, via the concept, which is just a shorter version of the word ''Conception'' which means the bringing into existence in a knowledgable mental sense that makes sense to the Mind.

So looking deeper it is seen that everything in reality is effecting everything else, as the Mind identifies with it's own mentally constructed mind maps, so in effect there's just endless effects happening each causing some other effecting all KNOWN via the mind of concepts that make the uncaused unknown KNOWN, else nothing is happening, nothing is known.

.

[Dontaskme]

You need a state of non existence before a first cause otherwise it cannot be known to be a first cause
So there has to be a reference point which is relative to the cause in question and this is non existence

But if non existence cannot be maintained according to quantum mechanics then the notion of a first cause is falsified
Absolute nothing cannot be maintained at either the quantum or classical level so something must always have existed

A state of non-existence could be the ''Mind'' so any 'first cause' must be within the realm of dualities which is the Mind identifying with itself. In essence that 'first cause' can only happen NOW as this eternal NOW. Identification is the known realm of duality...which is always NOW...again, concepts of first causes can only be conceptual illusions of the Mind, albeit very convincing and very much a real phenomena which is nothing short of magical actually. Because the split Mind can transcend into it's original unification state. And know that everything physical is mental and that this mental takes the form of the physical. The Absolute is immaterial, because it's magic.

.

[Logik]

Mathematics is even more reliable than empirical testing.

We have ourselves a space cadet!

[Belinda]

'First cause' has two meanings.
1.
It can mean that any event's causes are in a time sequence of caused events back to a first cause. >(first cause)
>
>
>
>
and so on ad infinitum,
This is a simple linear model of causation.


2.
It can mean that any event is partnered at the same time by one or more events that are each and every one caused by one event.
>(first cause)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ad infinitum

In the second case the first cause is nature or, if you are a theist, God. Each event, no matter how minuscule, relates to other events . Time is irrelevant.








>

[Logik]

Each event, no matter how minuscule, relates to other events . Time is irrelevant. >

When we speak about causality time is never irrelevant.

At the very least we are speaking about ordering. It is impossible for A to cause B if B happened before A.

[Immanuel Can]

So the test I proposed was actually empirical - perfectly scientific

Except that a first cause is actually non scientific due to quantum mechanics

Not so.

Nobody thinks quantum mechanics happen without any cause. We just don't seem to understand all the particular features of the mechanics. But that doesn't even suggest causlessness.

If things genuinely happened without cause, in this universe, we wouldn't just have rabbits popping out of hats -- we'd have elephants popping out of the ether. And science itself would be utterly impossible, since there would be no predictable or repeatable relationship between test and result.

[Logik]

we'd have elephants popping out of the ether.

We have quantum fluctuations popping out of the ether. Is that not good enough for you?

And science itself would be utterly impossible, since there would be no predictable or repeatable relationship between test and result.

There's no predictable relationship between test and result when you speak of a "first" cause", IF it happened, it happened only once.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no predictable relationship between test and result when you speak of a "first" cause", IF it happened, it happened only once.

We don't even have to believe in a god in order to know for certain there was a First Cause. Causality implies it necessarily.

[Logik]

We don't even have to believe in a god in order to know for certain there was a First Cause. Causality implies it necessarily.

Causality implies a temporal dualism: Cause-and-Effect. How can you tell whether the Universe is the cause or the effect?

There is absolutely no law of physics that mandates an arrow of time. For all you know we are going TOWARDS the Big Bang, not away from it...

[surreptitious57]

If things genuinely happened without cause in this universe

They dont at the classical level where cause and effect is a law of physics
At the quantum level however that law doesnt apply and is why quantum fluctuations exist and all of the time too
For in a state of absolute nothing they will be there because such a state cannot persist because it is very unstable

[Immanuel Can]

Causality implies a temporal dualism: Cause-and-Effect. How can you tell whether the Universe is the cause or the effect?

A thing cannot "cause" itself. The universe is a contingent entity, which necessitates that it has had a beginning. Thus, the universe is an effect.

For all you know we are going TOWARDS the Big Bang, not away from it...

Actually, if that were true, the universe would be contracting, not expanding. But as it is, we can see it's expanding, accelerating, and has already exceeded escape velocity for any contraction. So we know for sure we're not headed toward a BB.

However, that would still entail that the universe had an origin. That means it had a cause. That means a First Cause.

[Immanuel Can]

For in a state of absolute nothing they will be there because such a state cannot persist because it is very unstable

The term "state of absolute nothing" is a self-contradiction. If there is "absolute nothing," then there is nothing to be in any "state." There is also nothing to be "unstable," because "absolute nothing" cannot be called "stable" or "unstable." It cannot, in fact, be called anything.

Causality is a principle of all physics, including quantum physics. We just don't presently understand the mechanism. What we do know, however, is that things don't just "pop out of nothing" and do it "for no reason." To imagine otherwise is really to resort to lower than magical thinking, because at least in magical thinking there's a magician and a hat to produce rabbits. Out of absolute nothing, nothing comes.