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?

[Bugmaster]

Yes, every phase transition has God's hand upon it. Just like every delayed choice experiment has God preventing a violation of quantum laws, just like how the protection conjectures that QED and I discussed require a cosmic consciousness (as Kaku even confirmed).

That sounds like a leap of faith to me. Why is it that phase transitions (such as the melting of ice) require divine intervention of a conscious deity, but gravity does not ? I know that you see phase transitions as these magical events, but I don't see why they have to be.

Furthermore, why does God need to actively prevent the violation of quantum laws ? Even assuming that dualism is true, and that quantum laws actually exist in some Platonic realm, why can't they be self-sufficient ?

What would happen to ice if God got bored one day and decided to stop melting it ?

This entire worldview just sounds bizzare to me.

Who is more complex: monkeys, or an omni-god?

onkeys. An omni-God is just the action of a self-consistency principle (or paradox avoidance) operating in the universe.

Wait a minute. Is it a God, or just a self-consistency principle ? Assuming such a principle exists at all, we should be able to observe it (and we do, since the universe appears to be fairly mechanical). If we can observe it and test it, then it's not supernatural -- and it certainly doesn't have a personality, doesn't demand worship, etc. etc.

[harvey1]

Theology is a package deal and I can't see how you can strip it down to just the operational principles of the universe -- principles that are experimentally verifiable for their consistency to an extraordinary degree -- while still retaining the notion of judgment and intervention of a divine will.

Self-consistent physical laws are experimentally verifiable because the system and its equations are generally less sophisticated than complex non-linear systems. However, even in physical systems there is the uncertainty principle, superposition principle, delayed choice principle, etc., where judgment of the system's state is in some way suspended while the system is in that state. As systems become more complex, there is a period where judgment is suspended (e.g., until the phase transition) and the system takes on its new emergent properties. So, I don't see any inconsistency between an operational principle of the physical universe and a personal God. The "system" in this case is much more complex and whose judgment is delayed until their death and resurrection.

In the extreme this means that someone with blood on their hands can justly declare that they have done God's will -- for God permitted whatever unspeakable act they performed to happen in his universe.

Yes, many will say "Lord, Lord" at the Judgment, but that doesn't mean that God will not judge them severly.

[harvey1]

That sounds like a leap of faith to me. Why is it that phase transitions (such as the melting of ice) require divine intervention of a conscious deity, but gravity does not?

I think gravity does. I think every physical event in the universe undergoes a phase transition at some level.

I know that you see phase transitions as these magical events, but I don't see why they have to be.

I see phase transitions as those points where the system is judged to bring it in conformance with the laws.

Furthermore, why does God need to actively prevent the violation of quantum laws? Even assuming that dualism is true, and that quantum laws actually exist in some Platonic realm, why can't they be self-sufficient?

Every law must be associated with a state of affairs, and this requires a conscious mind. They laws can't work self-sufficiently since the law has no way to associate possible from not possible (or allowable from not allowable).

What would happen to ice if God got bored one day and decided to stop melting it?

God is not a person, and God is not outside the system to get bored. God is intrinsic to the Universe.

This entire worldview just sounds bizzare to me.

Why is a self-consistency principle operating in the universe so bizarre?

Wait a minute. Is it a God, or just a self-consistency principle? Assuming such a principle exists at all, we should be able to observe it (and we do, since the universe appears to be fairly mechanical).

We don't observe principles, we observe behaviors. (Why is it me reminding you of this since you are the one who has bombarded me with this notion on the thread about the Turing Test?) We infer consistency by comparing the operation of nature with our theories of how nature works.

If we can observe it and test it, then it's not supernatural -- and it certainly doesn't have a personality, doesn't demand worship, etc. etc.

A God principle that acts behind the scenes to elicit the will of God is "supernatural" in the sense that metaphysical naturalists reject that there is such a guiding principle that directs the affairs of men and directs the evolution of life. This God principle doesn't have a personality in the sense that it is a person acting outside of the system. God is in the system. Acting in the system doesn't prevent God from being personal--God is more personal in fact than any human being is capable of being.

As for demanding worship, I think that worship and glorifying are natural reactions to having found God's grace in life. It's the ultimate purpose of the Universe to find out what is true, what is meaningful. These are the objects that are saved at the end because they answer those questions. Those are the "objects" that have found God's grace and that answer the age old question, "what is truth?"

[QED]

Harvey, you must realize that what you present here is your interpretation of what you see. Feynman had his own interpretation of the least action principle for example. Things can be explained in many different ways when we invent some of the missing pieces ourselves. If we put an imaginary spin vector on a particle we can sum the vectors and see the reason for lights apparent desire to travel in straight lines. Alternatively, seeing as we are making things up here, we could say that the boogey man follows every photon like a sheepdog keeping it in line. But I think I have every reason to expect the truth to be closer to the spin explanation. That's the same sort of problem I have with your interpretation.

That, and the fact that the concepts it throws up like the one about delayed judgment does no great service to us as it still effectively leaves the decision down to the individual when it comes to crunch. This is the crux really, there is nothing effective about the interpretation you offer other than it lets you blend in with a crowd that hold to a similar story developed from a totally different set of propositions.

[harvey1]

I think what you miss in your accessment is that the cosmic mind is real, and that as a real background to our universe that it naturally influences our world. Religion is one of the main connections that humanity has with this cosmic mind, so it is only natural that certain interpretations keep bubbling up repeatedly that describe what lies ahead into the future.

I realize that you have labelled this as a boogeyman following a photon, but I have to emphasize that all of this follows naturally from a self-consistency principle having its instantiating effect on the world.

[Bugmaster]

I think what you miss in your accessment is that the cosmic mind is real, and that as a real background to our universe that it naturally influences our world.

I personally did not just "miss" that; I've explicitly denied it. There's a difference.

[QED]

I think what you miss in your accessment is that the cosmic mind is real, and that as a real background to our universe that it naturally influences our world. Religion is one of the main connections that humanity has with this cosmic mind, so it is only natural that certain interpretations keep bubbling up repeatedly that describe what lies ahead into the future.

Yes, but these particular interpretations were laid down in a pre-scientific age Harvey. You claim to conform wholly with scientific understanding yet your main axiom is that of the existence of mind without body - something I see no evidence for in the scientific literature. I understand that if you dig into certain interpretations of QM you can start heading-off in this direction, but then there are no end of different directions to head off into when starting from QM without a complete Scientific Theory of Everything. Neither does anything in science provide us with a principle by which mind could exist in the absence of matter/energy.

I would summarize our positions by saying that you believe in the beginning there was mind and this caused energy by thinking about it, and I prefer to believe that in the beginning there was energy and this condensed into matter that could begin to think.

[harvey1]

I think what you miss in your accessment is that the cosmic mind is real, and that as a real background to our universe that it naturally influences our world.

I personally did not just "miss" that; I've explicitly denied it. There's a difference.

When I say that you and QED miss it, I'm not saying that haven't explicitly denied it. I'm saying that you're mistaken about it.

[Bugmaster]

I think gravity does. I think every physical event in the universe undergoes a phase transition at some level.

If God is involved in every physical event in the Universe, then what is the difference between a Universe with God in it (or outside of it, whatever), and a Universe run by blind, mechanical natural laws ? Your God seems to be irrelevant.

I would say that the Universe with God in it is capable of miracles -- explicit and flamboyant violations of consistent laws as we know them -- but it seems like your God is not into that sort of thing.

I see phase transitions as those points where the system is judged to bring it in conformance with the laws.

Can God ever judge ice unworthy, and refuse to melt it, even though its temperature is raised to 100 deg C, and its pressure is sea-level ? If God cannot, or will not, do this... then what's the difference between God and a mechanical property of the Universe ? We don't worship Boyle's Law, so why should we worship God ?

Every law must be associated with a state of affairs, and this requires a conscious mind. They laws can't work self-sufficiently since the law has no way to associate possible from not possible (or allowable from not allowable).

What do you mean by "associate" ? Are you saying that your Platonic laws do not, by themselves, refer to anything ? Then what makes them laws ?

Man, talk about unnecessary complexity...

God is not a person, and God is not outside the system to get bored. God is intrinsic to the Universe.

In this case, God cannot be all-loving or all-knowing, because knowing things and loving things requires a personality. Worshipping such a God would be as pointless as worshipping gravity. Praying to this God is useless, because he's just a mechanical principle, he doesn't grant wishes. He does not possess "God's grace", because that implies an intenion, and your God doesn't have intentions. That's not much of a God, IMO.

We don't observe principles, we observe behaviors. (Why is it me reminding you of this since you are the one who has bombarded me with this notion on the thread about the Turing Test?) We infer consistency by comparing the operation of nature with our theories of how nature works.

You're splitting hairs now, since, as you're well aware, I believe that behavior (according to the Turing Test) is sufficient evidence for consciousness. Similarly, we do not directly observe electrons, but we can infer with a high degree of certainty that they exist. Consistency is in the same boat.

Acting in the system doesn't prevent God from being personal--God is more personal in fact than any human being is capable of being.

Seeing as I define "a human person" as "whatever acts human", that statement is virtually meaningless to me.

[harvey1]

Yes, but these particular interpretations were laid down in a pre-scientific age Harvey. You claim to conform wholly with scientific understanding yet your main axiom is that of the existence of mind without body - something I see no evidence for in the scientific literature.

I just recently referenced a couple of conjectures that imply cosmic mind, and Kaku understood it as much. Do you want me to quote him?

I understand that if you dig into certain interpretations of QM you can start heading-off in this direction, but then there are no end of different directions to head off into when starting from QM without a complete Scientific Theory of Everything.

The self-consistency and chronological protection conjectures were provided for non-QM reasons.

Neither does anything in science provide us with a principle by which mind could exist in the absence of matter/energy.

Science assumes there are physical laws to matter/energy. It doesn't make any sense to say that matter/energy is not governed by physical laws because, as I said, this leads to the absurd dilemma that each following event is very likely to be in violation of those physical laws.

would summarize our positions by saying that you believe in the beginning there was mind and this caused energy by thinking about it, and I prefer to believe that in the beginning there was energy and this condensed into matter that could begin to think.

I would summarize our positions by saying that you believe in the beginning there was a contingent fact and that somehow this contingent fact evolved into a universe based on necessary physical laws, whereas I prefer to believe that in the beginning there was a principle of self-consistency/causation, and this principle of self-consistency caused matter that could begin to think. I think the latter view is more parsimonious and avoids paradoxial results.