Philo Forum : First Cause

[Gnomon]

Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

Yes. As I reached adulthood, I became an Agnostic because I no longer believed the Bible was the inspired revelation of an omniscient deity. But I could never go all the way to Atheism, because I had no better explanation for the temporary existence of our contingent world. Augustine saw the logic of Aristotle's First Cause argument, but used it to defend his faith in the Christian Jehovah. My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time; which scientists called "The Singularity", and I call "G*D".

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal. — Echarmion

The Cause of space-time is "first" in the sense of "ultimate", not merely the first of a series. Logically, the Creator of our evolving universe must be prior-to the big-bang emergence of space-time, hence Eternal, and external to the Physical universe, hence Metaphysical. Prior, not in time, but in logical order.

Ultimate : a final or fundamental fact or principle
Prior : existing or coming before in time, order, or importance

I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible. — Devans99

Your "wider" universe is what scientists postulate as The Multiverse. My problem with that "more-of-the-same-forever" speculation is that it doesn't address the primary concern of philosophers today : how could Life & Mind arise by natural evolutionary processes? Atheists take it on faith, that physical Science will eventually answer "the hard question". But, I'm skeptical.

My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse, is to assume that the potential for Conscious Beings must have been included in (programmed into) the original Singularity. As a Agnostic, I prefer not to speculate on an eternal regression of the "same-old-same-old", which doesn't provide any new information anyway. My theory says that Information itself (power to enform, to create) is the causal energy that powers the progression of evolution. It's "just a theory", but it explains more than the Multiverse theory.

Turtles : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html
Information : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent: — Devans99

In my worldview, the First Cause is not Real, but Ideal, Metaphysical, not Physical. And it's permanent in the sense of existing necessarily, outside of the space-time world it created.

Metaphysical : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:
- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless
So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99

My Deist notion of G*D is all of the above, including "omnipresent". But, it's not an ancient anthro-morphic interventionist King in heaven, because we now know that our world is on automatic pilot --- it seems to be programmed with laws & constants & selection criteria to handle all contingencies via adaptation.

Since my abstract G*D is not a person, or a blob of "noodly appendages", it can be called by various names, depending on the context : Nature, Logos, Chaos, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. It's the eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part, and, as the Creator of physical space-time, can be known by humans only by what it does, not what it is.

Any questions?

[Gnomon]

An appeal to authority. Dropping names without explaining were and how they might apply. — Banno

I suspect that Amen was assuming you'd Google those names if you were really interested (not just dismissive) in how their expert theories "might apply". But we can get into more detail here, if you want to know about some "authoritative" alternatives to Atheism, that don't depend on ancient scriptures.

[Gnomon]

Don't leave your argument dangling. — Banno

I wasn't making an argument. Just noting that the "authorities" referred-to are highly-credentialed scientists. So your dismissive remarks, implying that the OP is irrational and anti-science, are unjustified.

[Gnomon]

Why adopt even this? — Banno

I adopted the Deist/Logos worldview simply because the Materialist ethos does not even address the fundamental philosophical question : Why? It tells us How the world evolves, but leaves us with the impression of a completely random meaningless process. Yet, Science would not be possible if there was no meaningful Order to the world. The creator or organizer (First Cause) of the logical process of evolution (physical causation) is a valid rational question. And the emergence of Mind from Matter is still the "hard problem" that some materialists dismiss as a non-scientific disputation. But it is, and always has been, a philosophical question.

So, I suppose you could say that my curiosity goes beyond the empirical limits of the scientific method. But it is not satisfied by the pre-scientific "revelations" of Religion. Consequently, I began with a cutting-edge insight of Quantum theory --- that all is Information --- and proceeded to develop my own personal worldview; which explains, to my satisfaction, how and why the world is the way it is. Moreover, as (non-theistic) philosopher Robert Wright concluded in The Evolution of God, "The beauty of the Logos was that you didn't have to take anyone's word for it". The evidence (information) is inherent in the physical world all around us, and the Logos conclusion is completely logical.

But, if your curiosity is content with a materialistic model of a world with a mysterious inexplicable elliptical beginning . . . . then that's OK with me [see Dawkins quote].

Logos : the divine algorithm
___Robert Wright

Logos : A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theo ... -body.html

Secular Deism : 3- Absolutely. I’ve seen no evidence that Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are against each other in anyway. Those who ascribed to these defined beliefs may disagree on some minor specifics about the likeliness of a creator, but that’s about it.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/11/ ... ecularism/

[Gnomon]

This nevertheless means that cause and effect isn't universal. I was really just pointing out that logical contradiction. — Echarmion

I agreed that the First Cause is not "universal", in the sense of limited to the known universe. I was just pointing out that the Logos is ubiquitous, comprehensive, omnipresent, and eternal. So it's not a logical contradiction, but merely a semantic distinction.

[Gnomon]

Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism. — Devans99

Unfortunately, the term "Deist" has gained some debatable baggage over the years, from its origin as simple (pre-big-bang) acknowledgement that the world had a beginning, a creation moment, hence a creator. So, I no longer emphasize that term, and instead call my worldview Enformationism, which is merely a theory of how the world evolved after the creation. I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural.

By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause. — Devans99

I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way.

[Gnomon]

I have never made my mind up on panentheism. A simplistic way of looking at it: In the beginning there was:
1. God. He made the universe from part of his own substance.
2. God and some stuff. He made the universe from stuff.
I have no evidence either way so it seems like 50%/50% for/against panentheism — Devans99

The only evidence we have about anything prior to the BigBang is what we learn from studying the aftermath : the "creation". In my personal worldview, I took the Quantum Theory "evidence" that everything in the world consists of various forms of Generic Information (causal power), which I call "EnFormAction". Shannon Information = destructive Entropy; Boltzman Information = creative Energy; Traditional Information = Mental substance; EnFormAction = cause of all of those forms.

Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". But that theory was postulated centuries before the Big Bang theory, so he assumed the world was eternal. And his theory was called PanTheism. We now know it has not existed forever, therefore we must look beyond the BB barrier to sensory knowledge, and logically infer a self-existent source of Enforming Causal power. Hence, the creative entity, whatever it is, must be both Eternal (metaphysical, Ideal) and Temporal (physical, Real). And the modern scientific & philosophical term for such a deity is PanEnDeism, which does not assume any biblical revelation or personal characteristics of the creative Principle.


Information : Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Information is Fundamental : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

EnFormAction : I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

]PanEnDeism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Spinoza's Substance]e : God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

[Gnomon]

I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno

Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. Besides, the opposing opinions in this thread are using different criteria : scientific empirical vs rational theoretical. God is not an empirical fact, but a theoretical opinion. Note that the OP says "almost certainly". So, we could debate until the gods come home, and never reach a final truth.

That's why we are merely sharing various opinions on the God topic, not trying to convert unbelievers. We are also using primarily inductive (scientific) reasoning, not deduction from scriptural authorities. Yet, as Hume noted, the Inductive process is open-ended. So, speaking for myself, I don't take my "probable" opinions on faith, but merely as steps to get closer to Truth.

Induction - closer to truth : the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Hume on Causation : since empirical evidence if always partial and incomplete, he advised skepticism toward provisional scientific "facts".
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/#H5

Closer to Truth : https://www.closertotruth.com/

[Gnomon]

This is because our language has nothing to grasp, nothing to work with. The best we can do is silence. — Banno

No. That's why philosophical speculations on ultimate truths and causes are always couched in metaphors. Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. Professional philosophers would be out of a job, if your assertion was true. Even hard-nosed scientists speculate on ideas without hard evidence (e.g. Dark Matter), and their theories are presented in metaphorical language : Dark Matter is like . . .

[Gnomon]

As opposed to, say, what happens here? — Banno

Yes. What happens here is philosophical dialogue. Many of us on this forum have no formal philosophical training, but are autodidacts. It's a way of learning about other people's ideas on topics of interest. Did you think the OP was making a formal argument, or inviting a contentious debate? Are you learning anything new?

Dialogue : As a narrative, philosophical or didactic device, it is chiefly associated in the West with the Socratic dialogue as developed by Plato, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue

Debate : A debate is seldom a learning device, but merely two preachers pontificating to different choirs.

The discussions in these general forums rarely achieve any depth. — Banno

That's why I have put my personal scientific & philosophical worldview into the form of a non-academic thesis : Enformationism. I am not content to hold unscientific beliefs or emotional feelings on important matters.

Since I am now retired, I have followed up that step-by-step exposition, supported with references and side notes, with topical essays on a variety of related subjects. The basic theory has been expanded in recent years, into a personal philosophy, on my Blog, and in a Forum. In my posts, I also offer suggested reading tips for further exploration. My original primitive views have evolved over the last 12 years.

So, if you want more "depth" on my briefly expressed opinions it is readily available on all digital media. Anyone who is interested in a different perspective on the god question, and many other topics, can continue this dialogue on the BothAnd Forum.

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

BothAnd Forum : viewforum.php?f=3