Causality and creation of the universe

When I used to debate the existence of God, this was mostly where the debate ended: since the (material) universe is one immense chain of cause and effect, in the beginning of the universe the very first 'cause' and it's medium (or material) had to be created, because there was nothing to begin with.

Unless you've got an answer other then simply: the universe was created by a God or the universe has no beginning or an end, I'd like to know about it.

What did philosophers of the past make of this? And modern philosophers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although I just consider myself a “random free thinker”, I would like to add my perspective:

The "start of the Universe" is just a non-existing limitation we add to the “Universe” concept, because our brains are accustomed to everything being temporary.

I would say that the Universe cannot possibly have a start. If it did have a start, an endless number of Universes exist before that.

Try to see everything as cyclic instead of the linear thinking we are used to. Spheres are the representation of the endless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cause and effect are not a chain, although it may seem so. the cause and effect are always in the present moment. nothing in the past can cause anything because the past is just a memory/thought.

nothing can create anything from nothing because there is nothing to use as material. so the only thing nothingness can do is create illusions (nothings).

cycles must also have a start.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think most of these comments are based on assumptions. Just because we each have a world view, and it is often more or less tied to some sort of world view consensus, doesnt mean that what we consider to be allowable or not, true or not, is, or is the absolute total of considerable options. To say that in the beginning there was nothing, so whatever came at the beginning HAD to be created, is an assumption. Just because we arent able or willing to consider alternatives, doesnt mean there arent any. Just because our limited experience and understanding of the tiny portion of the universe we're aware of seems to be ruled by cause and effect, doesnt mean the entire universe is subject to laws of cause and effect.

Chances are, when you find yourself being drawn into subtractive logics to answer what we might consider to be impossible questions, ones that seem to lead us and everyone before us, to the same unsubstantiated conclusions, we've already gone wrong. You can try to use these logics till the end of time to find an answer that cant exist within them, or connected to them, till the end of time without progress. Forget them. Try to approach the problem from ANY other angle. Make something up. Youll have a better chance that way. Like which came fucking first the chicken or the egg bullshit question. The egg. All chickens come from eggs. We know this to be a fact. Where the first egg came from is a different question altogether.

 

I would be glad if you showed me how to tell where is the start of a circle

 

everywhere. the whole circle must have a start. a cycle or circle can't just exist, it has to be created.

for example if a big bang created this universe, you can't say that there have been "infinite" universes before this. the cycle of those exploding universes must have a start.

 

Then the cycle of the cycle of those exploding universes must have a start.

And then the cycle of the cycle of the cycle of those exploding universes must have a start...

this plus infinite cycles...

And even if "someone must have created the circle", the circle itself doesn´t have a start or an end, that´s what I´m saying. I´m saying is the nature of the circle, not the artist who draw the circle, thats a different subject.

 

i think i already answered this when you asked it 2 years ago. you forgot?

a creator can't be created, and a creation can't be a creator. most people think of god as an entity (creation), but god just means the creator, and because nothing is the source of everything, 'nothing' is the creator, god. this is a real explanation because nothing doesn't need a creator. and that's why it's the only thing that can create/be anything.

saying that the wind is caused by the sun heating up the air is not an explanation - it just pushes the question back one step.

 

It is not necessarily important to be able to answer that - let's just take one example of the universe, as put forth by a certain religion, where the universe containing all the energies we perceive is just an illusory construct of a higher power.
It is obvious that the creation of the system and the creation of the system which contains it may have arisen by different methods - perhaps it is even likely that different origins would be necessary. The illusion can't really be created by an illusion which was also created by an illusion ad infinitum, or ALL is illusion, and there is no boundary by which the systems can be defined.
God cannot have been created by a higher power, or what we call "God" is really just a misnomered intermediary between our level of existence and the level of the true creator - similar to the description by the Kabbalist discussing Ein Sof, and Yhwh.

Another example - a person makes an animated video containing a world of picture based creatures. Does that imply that the creator is itself an animated cartoon? Not at all.

I agree that the belief that something arose without a first cause which would be perceivable by measurement of the energies we are currently able to observe does not fit within the bounds of any current science.

However the question James puts forth is far from paradoxical, even though many people would think it is.

 

since the (material) universe is one immense chain of cause and effect, in the beginning of the universe the very first 'cause' and it's medium (or material) had to be created, because there was nothing to begin with.

Isnt this question a little messed up? At the start of the question it establishes that the ultimate beginning, the very first thing period, is what were considering but immediately suggests that the very beginning came after and as a result of something happening with a pre-existing connection. Isnt it sort of counterproductive to define the the reason for the beginning being necessarily "created"?
Wouldnt be better to ask how the beginning came to be?

I read somewhere that there are questions whose answers are known, and questions whose an answers are unknown but are knowable, and that there are questions whose answers are unknowable. Do you think thats true?

 

hence god is usually attributed with being eternal with time and space being contingent aspects of his existence

 

What I am trying to say is that there can be an ultimate answer to one system's question, i.e., "where did THIS all begin, everything we can experience or consider a part of this universe, the beginning of this universe's experience of time as we understand it," without that answer necessarily explaining ALL systems.

In order to get the answer to THIS system, we would need a perspective that contains all the information necessary, which we don't have. The idea proposed by religion is that some information regarding this was revealed from outside the system we are in, through a special divine expression. Perhaps that is the closest we can get to a complete perspective. Or maybe it's irrelevant.
Either way, to answer the question about God's "beginning" we would have to have a perspective which could contain God's system, and since we can't even get an answer for our system, which is nested INSIDE God's system, how could we expect to do that?

The answers to the questions about our system and God's system seem most likely to be different and attained through different means. There is an implied understanding that God's system is bigger than ours. If you want to say that that doesn't make sense to you, that is ok, but don't say that the belief that there is a system outside ours which contains the "cause" of this system implies the need for another cause akin to those which we deal with inside our system.

 

Imagine that everything is becomming, or decaying into beyondless parts from a singularity with a plancklength in every direction even time (along with an infinite amount of dimenions) a time "1", that in its turn came from an equally plausible, zerodimensional "nolarity", lengthless, and with limits exchanged with lenghts, a time 0, and a length 0 in every direction, not even room had been caused.

They are equally plausible since both limits and 0 lengths are equally possible. Yes, the planck length is zero, but compareable with other planck lengths. 5*0 is 5 times longer then 0 for instance. etc. but for the singularity to become, it needed for the time to become one plancklength, from no plancklength.

And when it was 0 plancklengths, it could hardly be that anymore, now could it?

 

which just leaves us with the issue of consciousness

 

to me and you this is simple logic, but to others it is not the case. infinity is the only logical answer to me.. as i have stated in many threads.

it does not make sense unless there was never a start. thats the only logical answer. this is my opinion and will most likely never change.

peace.

 

impossible. something can't have existed forever because everything needs a cause in order to exist. there can't be an effect without a cause.

the only way something could have existed forever is if it's actually nothing (in a disguise, illusion). and that's exactly what it is because you know that 99.?% (100%) of 'matter' is empty space.