The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[harvey1]

God is just your preferred label for the that which is determined to be the first cause.

I think the label is aptly descriptive. As I said before, paradoxes are not possible, so on a physical level this translates into the non-allowance of certain events (e.g., information sent faster than light). Anyone who tries to devise an experiment that forces a paradox will find the laws of physics behaving in a way which prevents their success.

Well, I'm not so sure, but we really ought to discuss that sometime...

Sure. I think there is physical evidence from the universe that Christianity has a keen insight into how God made the universe. However, as far as the First Cause argument is concerned, I think it is an excellent argument.

[Curious]

This particular universal configuration need not even be the first attempt and need not necessarily be the last. So how exactly do these theorems have any bearing on my original postulation?

The theorems show that there is no configuration of energy-matter where General Relativity does not require a singularity in the past. Therefore, it is not possible, according to the theorem, for the matter-energy to exist indefinitely in the past. Your argument was that matter-energy "can be neither created nor destroyed but only borrowed and/or converted" and this is not true indefinitely in the past. There was a time when matter-energy had no prior history (according to these theorems), otherwise known as the big bang.

Why do you insist on changing the argument to suit yourself? I made no such claim about matter-energy as well you know. Singularities pose a real problem for relativity and matter-energy is unable to exist within a singularity as matter requires both volume and mass. While it is possible for energy to exist in such a state, matter-energy is a different thing entirely. So the fact or otherwise of matter-energy being unable to exist into time indefinite really is completely beside the point. Considering the amount of work done since the inception of the universe I think we should assume that the cause would likely be something with the potential to do work. Energy, quite fortunately for my argument here, has that very definition.

[harvey1]

Why do you insist on changing the argument to suit yourself? I made no such claim about matter-energy as well you know. Singularities pose a real problem for relativity and matter-energy is unable to exist within a singularity as matter requires both volume and mass. While it is possible for energy to exist in such a state, matter-energy is a different thing entirely. So the fact or otherwise of matter-energy being unable to exist into time indefinite really is completely beside the point. Considering the amount of work done since the inception of the universe I think we should assume that the cause would likely be something with the potential to do work. Energy, quite fortunately for my argument here, has that very definition.

Why do you talk of energy as separate from matter-energy? Energy is convertible to matter, and matter is convertible to energy. Whether we are talking energy or matter the Penrose-Hawking equations show that such cannot exist indefinitely into the past.

[Curious]

Why do you talk of energy as separate from matter-energy? Energy is convertible to matter, and matter is convertible to energy. Whether we are talking energy or matter the Penrose-Hawking equations show that such cannot exist indefinitely into the past.

I make the distinction because prior to the inception of the universe matter could not exist so the term matter-energy is incorrect. Energy on the other hand has no such limitation. We see from the big-bang that there was a potential to do work. This potential to do work is energy.
Matter is a configuration of energy within space-time, not outside of it.

[harvey1]

I make the distinction because prior to the inception of the universe matter could not exist so the term matter-energy is incorrect. Energy on the other hand has no such limitation.

If there is energy, then there are particles (e.g., photons, gluons, etc.), so why make that distinction when the singularity theorems apply to all particles?

We see from the big-bang that there was a potential to do work. This potential to do work is energy. Matter is a configuration of energy within space-time, not outside of it.

You could have a free lunch as predicted by quantum cosmology. Negative energy and positive energy completely cancel each other with the universe starting from nothing. This is quantum cosmology and has been theorized since the 1980's.

[Curious]

I make the distinction because prior to the inception of the universe matter could not exist so the term matter-energy is incorrect. Energy on the other hand has no such limitation.

If there is energy, then there are particles (e.g., photons, gluons, etc.), so why make that distinction when the singularity theorems apply to all particles?

Not at all, the only thing that consitutes this (pre BB) energy is it's potential. Just because we experience these energies as having mass does not mean that the inherent energy "always" had mass. The photon is an example of energy with absolutely no detectable intrinsic rest mass and only assumes this property by virtue of it's motion. Energy is quite capable of being without both mass and volume.

You could have a free lunch as predicted by quantum cosmology. Negative energy and positive energy completely cancel each other with the universe starting from nothing. This is quantum cosmology and has been theorized since the 1980's.

It is not a matter of being a free lunch. There is no net gain and so no free lunch.

[harvey1]

I make the distinction because prior to the inception of the universe matter could not exist so the term matter-energy is incorrect. Energy on the other hand has no such limitation.

If there is energy, then there are particles (e.g., photons, gluons, etc.), so why make that distinction when the singularity theorems apply to all particles?

Not at all, the only thing that consitutes this (pre BB) energy is it's potential.

Current physics does not provide a clue to the nature of a pre-BB (if indeed there is a pre-BB). So, it is meaningless to talk about a potential in spacetime where there might not even exist a pre-BB spacetime geometry.

Just because we experience these energies as having mass does not mean that the inherent energy "always" had mass.

Energy and matter take the form of quanta. Even without mass (i.e., presumably before the symmetry breaking of the Higgs field), the singularity is unavoidable.

The photon is an example of energy with absolutely no detectable intrinsic rest mass and only assumes this property by virtue of it's motion. Energy is quite capable of being without both mass and volume.

I think we're getting off the point. We do not have any indication that energy and matter, according to General Relativity, are uncaused. As Hawking and Ellis said:

The expansion of the universe is in many ways similar to the collapse of a star, except that the sense of time is reversed. We shall show in this chapter that the conditions of theorems 2 and 3 seem to satisfied, indicating that there was a singularity at the beginning of the present expansion phase of the universe, and we discuss the implications of space-time singularities (...) The results we have obtained support the idea that the universe began a finite time ago. However the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of presently known laws of physics.(Hawking and Ellis, "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time", 1973), pp. 348, 364

We can certainly speculate on pre-BB events, and whether energy and/or matter existed in some other form which new physics is required to show, however we do not have a valid theory to show this as the case. Energy certainly does not appear to be uncaused to many theorists since many hypotheses are making more and more use of the quantum vacuums which have their origin due to the uncertainty principle causing spacetime fluctuations.

[Curious]

Current physics does not provide a clue to the nature of a pre-BB (if indeed there is a pre-BB). So, it is meaningless to talk about a potential in spacetime where there might not even exist a pre-BB spacetime geometry.

Current physics provides ample evidence in support of this theory. Obviously we can only guess at the nature of the pre matter origin but we should at least incorporate possiblilties or characteristics that are known. Otherwise we might as well say the universe was created by a huge nine headed pink antelope that farted out the universe after drinking 19 pints of cosmic hyper brew.

Energy and matter take the form of quanta. Even without mass (i.e., presumably before the symmetry breaking of the Higgs field), the singularity is unavoidable.

Quanta are quantfiable. A singularity does not have such a property. A singularity is a unification. A singularity is no barrier to my postulation. A singularity actually makes my theory more believable.

I think we're getting off the point. We do not have any indication that energy and matter, according to General Relativity, are uncaused. As Hawking and Ellis said:

According to all known rules of physics there is no cause for energy and it is therefore assumed to be uncaused. Matter is caused by energy (we know this).

We can certainly speculate on pre-BB events, and whether energy and/or matter existed in some other form which new physics is required to show, however we do not have a valid theory to show this as the case. Energy certainly does not appear to be uncaused to many theorists since many hypotheses are making more and more use of the quantum vacuums which have their origin due to the uncertainty principle causing spacetime fluctuations.

Ok Harvey1, show me why you believe that energy is uncaused. This would certainly be a great day for physics if you could show such a contention to be true.

[harvey1]

Current physics provides ample evidence in support of this theory.

What evidence are you referring to? The only evidence that I know of (to date) is the CBR which shows evidence for quantum fluctuations, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether energy existed prior to a singularity (or how a singularity is avoided).

Obviously we can only guess at the nature of the pre matter origin but we should at least incorporate possiblilties or characteristics that are known. Otherwise we might as well say the universe was created by a huge nine headed pink antelope that farted out the universe after drinking 19 pints of cosmic hyper brew.

We agree though, that current physics has nothing to say other than that a singularity is currently unavoidable, right? I agree that we can base our views on what seems reasonable, but wouldn't you agree that without a validated theory we have no basis to make any kind of conclusion? (I.e., since current physics indicates that energy cannot be described eternally into the past considering the equations of physics breakdown at the singularity.)

Quanta are quantfiable. A singularity does not have such a property. A singularity is a unification. A singularity is no barrier to my postulation. A singularity actually makes my theory more believable.

Isn't the only form of kinetic energy that we know exists is based on energy-matter being quanta? Don't the current laws of physics breakdown at a singularity? So why does it make no sense to say that energy exists at a singularity in a new non-quanta form if the equations do not show that?

According to all known rules of physics there is no cause for energy and it is therefore assumed to be uncaused. Matter is caused by energy (we know this).

You have all sorts of virtual particles that are created and annihilate out of the vacuum, including highly energetic photons. According to Hawking radiation the virtual partner of one of the pairs can emerge on one side of the event horizon of a blackhole (with the other partner on the other side of the blackhole). The partner that emerges outside of the blackhole can become a real particle. Wouldn't you agree that here is an example of energy popping out of nothing?

Ok Harvey1, show me why you believe that energy is uncaused. This would certainly be a great day for physics if you could show such a contention to be true.

I personally think that quantum cosmology is correct. I think the whole universe is caused from quantum laws (i.e., all the energy-matter in the universe comes to exist from nothing--no spacetime). Of course, there's no proof of this, but considering that singularity theorems are very powerful (e.g., they have recently been shown to prevent eternal inflation into the infinite past), I think a quantum origin for the universe is a very reasonable possibility.

In any case, we have to base our answers on current physics, and based on current physics we cannot avoid a singularity into the past, which says that we cannot construct a GR-compliant history where energy exists indefinitely in the past.

[ST88]

What you are saying, in effect, is that there might be an irrational reason why X is in it's X-state. What I'm saying is that this is no different on a pen being in an irrational state. Just because we know how it is supposed to behave does not make the analogy irrelevant.

Well, yes it does, and no -- it does not imply an irrational event. What I was getting at was that there is no reason to believe that any particular reason or cause or force was at work because we did not know any previous states of the pen. If it's just sitting there, then we can't even reverse engineer the cause. But since we know it's kind of unusual for a pen to be sitting there in the middle of the air, then we can start our reverse engineering from there.

I've already said that I don't think there are any irrational events, so stop putting words in my mouth. There is no such thing as an irrational state (except perhaps in mathematics and my family reunions).

That is my point. You are changing tune with respect to the universe by saying that it may not have a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, then it is an irrational event.

That sounds suspiciously like an opinion. If there is no cause, then there is no event; if that's what you mean by irrational, then go right ahead and redefine the term.

In the multiverse hypothesis, there is a pre-universe condition, which is (for the purposes of this argument) the uncaused condition -- vapor cloud of logic symbols or whatever -- and in such a condition our current universe still has a beginning, arising from that.

No. I say the (multi/uni)verse must have a cause because I think allowance of irrational events is irrational thinking. You could use that same thinking to justify any event. "Science can't explain it? Well, just use the same irrational event stuff that we're using over here to explain the existence of the universe. Works fine for me."

That's what I love about you, harv. You take the charge traditionally flung at theists and fling it back at non-theists, thereby obfuscating your own position. If you feel that an uncaused cause is irrational, then that is your right, because it really sounds like an opinion.