Can Logic Disprove the Necessity of a First Cause?

[ƒ(x)]

Clarification: Not a religious god, but the first force.

Starting question: What was the original cause that started everything, how can there be an original cause without god?



Case A: There was no original cause; the universe always was and always will be.
Result: No god.

Case B: There was an original cause. Then what caused the original cause? Another cause would lead to an infinite loop and achieve nothing, so the original cause must always have existed. Why couldn't the universe have always existed, it would be illogical to think otherwise?
Result: No god.

 

[Hurkyl]

Case C: There was an original cause. The original cause had no cause.

Case D: There was an original cause. The original cause caused itself.


If you mean "first force", then why do you use the word god? If that's not trolling, it's close.


What is a "first force" anyways? What constitutes a "cause"? This whole argument seems like an abstract game, rather than a deductive argument involving words expected to correspond to elements of reality.

 

[MotoH]

First force existed before creation of the Universe

 

[magnusrobot12]

why can't the first cause be "god"? how about his idea, "god" disrupted the symmetry of the singularity that gave rise to inflation. but, because the universe exists only as a wave function without an observer, then "god" serve the role of the observer to allow for the universe to collapse and evolve. "god" stayed in the role of the observer until sentient beings evolved. when sentient beings evolved, "god" does not need to keep observing the universe in order for the universe to remain collapsed into matter. the sentient beings can now take over that role. "god" then goes to another singularity and starts the same process in a new universe. this also explains the problem of evil. "god" does not need observe our universe anymore and does not care about the rapes and murders. that type of violence is the same as the violence of a supernova explosion. its background. so long as there are at least one sentient life form in a universe, the universe remains collapsed into matter. also, if we destroy ourselves with nuclear war, the universe will be fine because there are probably other sentient beings on other galaxies that prevent the wave function from re-establishing itself.

 

[Evo]

Discussion of specfic religions will not be allowed. "god" will be considered a supernatural being and not associated with any particular religion for the sake of discussion.

 

[ƒ(x)]

The word god was used merely for its familiarity.

Case C: There was an original cause. The original cause had no cause.

Case D: There was an original cause. The original cause caused itself.

How can the original cause have no cause or cause itself? That is illogical and grounds for the rejection of these two cases. Man...I sound like Spock or someone.

What is a "first force" anyways? What constitutes a "cause"? This whole argument seems like an abstract game, rather than a deductive argument involving words expected to correspond to elements of reality.

Please debate the idea instead of arguing semantics.

 

[ƒ(x)]

why can't the first cause be "god"?

That's what I was saying in case B...

"god" disrupted the symmetry of the singularity that gave rise to inflation. but, because the universe exists only as a wave function without an observer, then "god" serve the role of the observer to allow for the universe to collapse and evolve. "god" stayed in the role of the observer until sentient beings evolved. when sentient beings evolved, "god" does not need to keep observing the universe in order for the universe to remain collapsed into matter. the sentient beings can now take over that role. "god" then goes to another singularity and starts the same process in a new universe. this also explains the problem of evil. "god" does not need observe our universe anymore and does not care about the rapes and murders. that type of violence is the same as the violence of a supernova explosion. its background. so long as there are at least one sentient life form in a universe, the universe remains collapsed into matter. also, if we destroy ourselves with nuclear war, the universe will be fine because there are probably other sentient beings on other galaxies that prevent the wave function from re-establishing itself.

I'm sorry, can you rephrase this?

 

[JoeDawg]

Case A: There was no original cause; the universe always was and always will be.
Case B: There was an original cause.

Case C: Causation is a poorly understood term, that doesn't apply to universes.

 

[magnusrobot12]

I'm sorry, can you rephrase this?

ah dude, I'm not so sure. basically what i was trying to say is that the universe can exist as a wave function until someone observes it. i was saying that "god" can be the ultimate observer of the universe while it evolved until sentient beings can take over the function of the observer and prevent the universe from collapsing back into a wave. Does this make sense? It really makes sense to me, not that I am right or wrong, just that it could make sense. I'm dizzy right now.

 

[Hurkyl]

The word god was used merely for its familiarity.

The word blue is familiar too. Why not use that instead?

How can the original cause have no cause or cause itself? That is illogical and grounds for the rejection of these two cases.

I don't see the problem. *shrug* I do see an apparent contradiction in your beliefs -- you seem to have no problem with "the universe" not having a cause, and you offer no reason why "the universe" and an "original cause" should be different in that respect.

Please debate the idea instead of arguing semantics.

Without semantics, we cannot discuss the notion of truth.

And, incidentally, without axioms, the only thing we can prove are tautologies. We cannot even prove a statement like

A cause has an effect​

 

[magnusrobot12]

i don't understand this topic. god is being written everywhere. can someone help me distinguish when its OK to say god and when its not. I am not trying to be obnoxious, but i am confused about the rules.

 

[ƒ(x)]

I don't see the problem. *shrug* I do see an apparent contradiction in your beliefs -- you seem to have no problem with "the universe" not having a cause, and you offer no reason why "the universe" and an "original cause" should be different in that respect.

Reread case B

 

[Boy@n]

1. Awareness of 'I am' proves existence to me.

2. Existence has to be eternal, or else it would mean it had beginning, but that's impossible since existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

3. Given eternity the most probable conclusion is that supreme being evolved.

4. Thus this logicaly proves God to me.

If logic disproves God to you, fine, your choice.

 

[zomgwtf]

1. Awareness of 'I am' proves existence to me.

2. Existence has to be eternal, or else it would mean it had beginning, but that's impossible since existence cannot arise out of non-existence.

3. Given eternity the most probable conclusion is that supreme being evolved.

4. Thus this logicaly proves God.

I fail to see the logic.

 

[zomgwtf]

Reread case B

Case B proves nothing logically. All it shows is that you have a preference to chosing the universe to have always existed as opposed to a 'supreme being' of some sort. Yet you would prefer to choose the 'supreme being' over an infinite loop.

Nothing logical shown however to conclude 'No god.'

 

[magpies]

Ok so what exactly does supernatural being mean? It sounds like it could mean anything honestly. So if your going to try to prove the non-existence of a being that could be any of almost any type... I think you got your work cut out for you.

 

[Boy@n]

Clarification: Not a religious god, but the first force.

Starting question: What was the original cause that started everything, how can there be an original cause without god?



Case A: There was no original cause; the universe always was and always will be.
Result: No god.

Case B: There was an original cause. Then what caused the original cause? Another cause would lead to an infinite loop and achieve nothing, so the original cause must always have existed. Why couldn't the universe have always existed, it would be illogical to think otherwise?
Result: No god.

Imagine pure and complete awareness and let's call it God. Now imagine this God being eternal,beyond time and physical limitations. Imagine God creating Universes with life. Life being God's seeds, of same essence as God, thus being relative awareness. Life evolving, progressing into higher and higher states of awareness within this relative reality until one day it reaches highest state of awareness and becomes absolute, goes beyond time and matter, becomes God - pure and complete awareness.

Now, your logic is kinda true within confines of this Universe, but what if it is incomplete? What if God is outside this Universe?

My logic tells me there is state of incredibly high awareness (as I pointed out in my previous post here), and I have no problem calling that God.

 

[magpies]

What if God is outside this Universe?

How can god be outside of "every thing"?

And why are you ok with calling awareness god? What exactly does pure and complete awareness look like?

 

[zomgwtf]

My logic tells me there is state of incredibly high awareness (as I pointed out in my previous post here), and I have no problem calling that God.

You are exactly right. This is YOUR personal 'logic' and it is in no way shape or form comparable to what is actually known as logic.

 

[pallidin]

So, is there a God or not?
Has to be one way or another.

 

[zomgwtf]

So, is there a God or not?
Has to be one way or another.

In my opinion it's a pointless question so why ask it? Of course there has to be an answer but does it mean anything to us at all?

What about the teacup?

 

[pallidin]

In my opinion it's a pointless question so why ask it? Of course there has to be an answer but does it mean anything to us at all?QUOTE]

That's like saying it's pointless to wonder if your country has a President.
If everyone completely disregarded the notion of a "leader" our entire world would be in constant chaos(much more so than it is now)

 

[apeiron]

This is a standard question so forgive my standard reply.

The question as posed reflects a certain paradigm. It assumes the universe exists and therefore there is a problem of first cause.

But another way of looking at it is that the universe persists, and it is the product of a developmental process.

Development can be considered as something ruled also by final cause - there is a purpose, or at least an attractor, which "draws the outcome inevitably towards it".

The initial conditions for this kind of self-organisation are then a vague potential. The kind of symmetrical everythingness that is also a nothingness.

I collected resources on this earlier thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is a standard question so forgive my standard reply.

The question as posed reflects a certain paradigm. It assumes the universe exists and therefore there is a problem of first cause.

But another way of looking at it is that the universe persists, and it is the product of a developmental process.

Development can be considered as something ruled also by final cause - there is a purpose, or at least an attractor, which "draws the outcome inevitably towards it".

The initial conditions for this kind of self-organisation are then a vague potential. The kind of symmetrical everythingness that is also a nothingness.

I collected resources on this earlier thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301514

I think i understand what you are saying but i get the feeling that you are deliberately being vague about your idea. Is it because it's against the forum rules to put forward theories that you cannot prove or is it because you feel that the missing part of the puzzle we call reality is still too hazy? Or perhaps both?

 

[apeiron]

I think i understand what you are saying but i get the feeling that you are deliberately being vague about your idea. Is it because it's against the forum rules to put forward theories that you cannot prove or is it because you feel that the missing part of the puzzle we call reality is still too hazy? Or perhaps both?

This is a philosophy thread, so a sound argument should be good enough. It is also the most ancient of philosophical positions. You can find it Taoism and buddhism.

And ironically perhaps, the best example in ancient times is the pretty much over-looked metaphysics of Anaximander, the first real philosopher in recorded history.

His term for what I am calling vague potential was apeiron - loosely translated as the boundless, the unlimited. So scholarly precedent is not a problem for this view of causality.

Vagueness itself is a standard philosophical term (see the sorities paradox). It was again important in the work of a major metaphysician, CS Peirce, and ontic vagueness was a vogue issue in modern philosophy for about four years from 2002 (don't ask me why the interest flared and died so abruptly).

No, the real problem is that vagueness requires a fundamentally different notion of causation. And that is just a hard thing to understand.

I remember at first thinking it sounded nonsense and arguing hard against it. Then when it clicked, the lightbulb went on as they say.

My interest now is in the scientific application and mathematical modelling of this other view of causality. As philosophy, it is itself vague and handwavey. But systems science is a way to make it concrete. And this in turn demands formal mathematical models.

The best route to modelling a concept like vagueness would be symmetry (and thus symmetry-breaking).

But it must be a dynamic symmetry and not a static one. So that connects with the maths of fractals and scalefree systems - systems with scale symmetry. And also with equlibrium models.

So my general claim is that an ancient idea is the answer to modern scientific issues and to make it work we just need the right mathematical representations.

 

[zomgwtf]

That's like saying it's pointless to wonder if your country has a President.

Not it's not, how exactly did you draw this conclusion? From mid-air?

If everyone completely disregarded the notion of a "leader" our entire world would be in constant chaos(much more so than it is now)

Ok, that's great that you believe that... really I'm happy for you.

 

[jostpuur]

I would emphasize following four alternatives:

Possibility 00: There was no original cause, and there is no god.

Possibility 01: There was no original cause, and there is a god.

Possibility 10: There was an original cause, and there is no god.

Possibility 11: There was an original cause, and there is a god.

How could anyone eliminate any of these alternatives by logic? They look all possible to me.

The discussion about original cause reminds me about the sets $]-\infty,\infty[$ and $[0,\infty[$. The set $]-\infty,\infty[$ doesn't have a beginning but the set $[0,\infty[$ does. Consider following claims:

Claim 1: "Time axis is like $[0,\infty[$, and god made time began at $t=0$."

Claim 2: "Time axis is like $]-\infty,\infty[$,and god made time began at $t=-\infty$."

Is the claim 2 more absurd than the claim 1? IMO it's not. They look both something that I have difficulty understanding, and both something that I would not deny as impossible.

 

[hamster143]

What is the original cause of Mandelbrot's fractal?

 

[apeiron]

I think set theory is a good thing to mention because we know how that kind of logic fails with self-referential causal situations.

After set theory came category theory. Which is based on dichotomisation - the division into structures and morphisms.

This in turn should lead you to a developmental causality in which figure and ground arise synergistically.

Then to make this trick work, you need a suitable ground of development like vagueness, and recognition of final cause so that what happens as the result of self-organisation can be said to have "causal inevitability".

So translating this to set theoretic terms, vagueness would seem to be the set of all possible sets. But it does not exist. It is just pure possibility.

Then the possible becomes the actual as collections of localised things are grouped by their shared forms. Sets describe the broken symmetry where there are global contexts which allow for local events.

 

[Pinu7]

Trying to disprove God(s) using logic is like trying to prove him with logic. In other words, it is futile, absurd, and, well, kind of stupid. It also fails to assume the belief that several theists have, and that is that God(s) transcend logic.

Also, logic is a human invention meant to organize statements and find any tautologies(if any) and truth tables of any compound statements. It is not used to actually experimentally validate statements other than the tautologies like P^(~P).

Is the claim 2 more absurd than the claim 1? IMO it's not.

Remember, the "big bang" theory does postulate there was a beginning. Another point, I'd like to make is that, even if time does not have a beginning or end, that is not a disproof against God(s), except for the possibility of several interpretations of scriptures, such as the literal interpretations of Genesis.

A classical question of philosophy that "why would the universe even bother to exist" (phrased from Feynman), and that can not be explained by logic alone. Therefore, some turn to physics, some turn to God(s), and some turn to both.

 

[imiyakawa]

Case C: Causation is a poorly understood term,

Agreed. How we view causation is epiphenomena of PHYSICAL LAWS + TIME, that is all. The thing is, BOTH EXIST WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE, so they cannot be applied to WHATEVER PRECEEDED THIS UNIVERSE.

Does this debunk the OP?

In my opinion it's a pointless question so why ask it?

Are you science? I know I'm not science, so I would like to speculate on whether a creater could possibly exist

 

[apeiron]

Agreed. How we view causation is epiphenomena of PHYSICAL LAWS + TIME. The thing is, BOTH EXIST WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE, so they cannot be applied to WHATEVER PRECEEDED THIS UNIVERSE.

Except, if the universe is clearly the result of a broken symmetry, then it does make "logical" sense to talk about its initial conditions as a prior state of symmetry.

We know from physics that our universe does indeed look like the result of a thermodynamic symmetry breaking process.

But then our standard-issue mechanistic logic is not a symmetry breaking model of causality. It is all about how A + B constructs future state C. Not about how past state of symmetry A divides locally~globally (towards a B~C brokenness).

So you have physics telling us one thing - reality is the product of a symmetry-breaking, so implying a prior symmetry. And our logic not being up to the task of representing this fact because it is not itself founded on symmetry-breaking machinery.

The reason for introducing the machinery of vagueness, dichotomies and hierarchies is because this is a symmetry-breaking view of logic to match the scientific observations.

Once logic and observation are aligned, then we can make logical extrapolations about what may be "outside" and "before" the big bang.

I should add, in case there is any doubt, that there is no room for gods in this particular approach as far as I'm concerned. It is a purely physical view.

Gods are posited as the law-givers and world-creators. The systems approach, based on symmetry-breaking models, is all about self-organisation. If you still need a god somewhere - an external cause - the story is not working.

This kind of conventional god is just efficient causation. So again repeating the standard mechanistic shortcoming in which all causality is reduced to just efficient causation.

As Aristotle recognised, there are four causes. You have the dichotomy formed by the material and formal causes (local substance~global form). Then you have another dichotomy in efficient and final cause (local initiating event~global organising purpose).

It takes this kind of holistic package to model a systems-level action like symmetry-breaking.

Having accepted that, the crucial question - so far as origins of universes go - is how to cash out the realisation that in the beginning was not nothing, or even everything (either as a plenum or eternal time), but instead an unbroken symmetry.

Multiverses, lie algebras, quantum mechanics - they are all dipping a toe in that water. But the barrier to clearer understanding is that people still continue to use old logic to extrapolate.

If the physics is telling us the answer is symmetry breaking, then logic needs to be updated to match. Or rather, reconnect with the symmetry breaking models of ancient philosophy.

 

[zomgwtf]

Are you science? I know I'm not science, so I would like to speculate on whether a creater could possibly exist

Am I science? Do you mean scientist?
What was your point again?

As an aside, I don't think any speculation is necessary on whether a creator could possibly exist. It's well-known that it's possible... This doesn't change the fact that trying to prove/disprove a creators existence or looking for diffinitive answers for the existence of such a creator are rediculous and wasteful.

Read apeirons response I found it particularly well written.

 

[imiyakawa]

Am I science? Do you mean scientist?
What was your point again?

As an aside, I don't think any speculation is necessary on whether a creator could possibly exist. It's well-known that it's possible... This doesn't change the fact that trying to prove/disprove a creators existence or looking for diffinitive answers for the existence of such a creator are rediculous and wasteful.

I meant to say that it's disinteresting to science, as it cannot be proven, but interesting on a personal level.

 

[skippy1729]

Case D: There was an original cause. The original cause caused itself.

There is a (very speculative) physical model of this "Can the universe create itself?" by Gott and Li, published in a peer reviewed journal (Physical Review D) available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344. Paper is very technical but there is a nice picture at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/ps/9712/9712344v1.fig1.gif

Abstract: The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.