First cause.

[Furrowed Brow]

A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

Why must a beginning have a cause?

[Furrowed Brow]

I promised to argue this point with 4gold. To kick off. I'd argue that there is no logical or formal reason for a beginning to need a cause. To think that a beginning needs a cause is akin to other common sense assertions such as "what goes up must come down", "you can't get something from nothing", "what is true for you is true for me", which whilst being truths of common sense are either false or not logically true.

[ollagram88]

mind if i ask, can we name an example of something without a cause?

[Furrowed Brow]

mind if i ask, can we name an example of something without a cause?

Virtual particles may be a physical example. In physics there is no law or principle that says something must have a cause. The limitation is that certain principles like conservation of energy and momentum are not broken.

I'd also say that the experience or rather sensual experience qua experience is uncaused. We might at some point identify which neuron-chemical interaction is the experience of say a smell of the colour blue, but as to how the physical interaction is the subjects experience of lavender or the experience of blue I'd say is not a matter of a causal explanation.

[Nick_A]

A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

Why must a beginning have a cause?

The great debate:

1. The essence of religion asserts that the first cause is consciousness without objects

2. The modern atheist asserts that qualities of materiality arising by chance in one way or another unite and at a certain complexity produce consciousness.

I'll stick with #1 and with Simone's observations on Creation:

"God could only create by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself."

This is why:

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." Simone Weil - from "Gravity and Grace"

Consciousness without objects is the first cause because all possible objects are connected as lawful "fractions" of a greater wholeness.

[Goat]

A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

Why must a beginning have a cause?

The great debate:

1. The essence of religion asserts that the first cause is consciousness without objects

2. The modern atheist asserts that qualities of materiality arising by chance in one way or another unite and at a certain complexity produce consciousness.

I'll stick with #1 and with Simone's observations on Creation:

"God could only create by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself."

This is why:

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." Simone Weil - from "Gravity and Grace"

Consciousness without objects is the first cause because all possible objects are connected as lawful "fractions" of a greater wholeness.

It is seeing reasoning like that which if firming up my change from a weak theist to a weak atheist to a strong atheist. The circular nature of that arguement makes me dizzy.

[Nick_A]

Goat

It is seeing reasoning like that which if firming up my change from a weak theist to a weak atheist to a strong atheist. The circular nature of that arguement makes me dizzy

Then from a strong atheist you will continue the progression and become a strong theist.

I can't believe you won't admit the difference at least theoretically between "nothing" and "no-thing." Both are without objects but entirely different.

[bernee51]

A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

Why must a beginning have a cause?

The great debate:

1. The essence of religion asserts that the first cause is consciousness without objects

2. The modern atheist asserts that qualities of materiality arising by chance in one way or another unite and at a certain complexity produce consciousness.

I'll stick with #1 and with Simone's observations on Creation:

This despite that fact that there is evidence for #2 and none for #1

"God could only create by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself."

As is believed by panentheists.

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." Simone Weil - from "Gravity and Grace"

If Simone was with us we could debate her. Instead we get to read her opinions through a fan.

Consciousness without objects is the first cause because all possible objects are connected as lawful "fractions" of a greater wholeness.

It was objects that facilitated the evolution of the consciousness that allows these objects to be realized.

You appear to have taken by the wrong end the idea that without consciousness the phenomenal universe would not exist.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

It was objects that facilitated the evolution of the consciousness that allows these objects to be realized.

You appear to have taken by the wrong end the idea that without consciousness the phenomenal universe would not exist.

The sad part is that people argue so much that they will never see the relationship between both sides and just keep arguing.

Fortunately, if one gets beyond argument and contemplates deeper this situation the question of the source and levels of reality becomes fascinating.

http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/

Thomas McFarlane did a fine job in uniting these excerpts from Einstein and Buddha. For example:

I teach that the multitudinousness of objects have no reality in themselves but are only seen of the mind and, therefore, are of the nature of maya and a dream. ...It is true that in one sense they are seen and discriminated by the senses as individualized objects; but in another sense, because of the absence of any characteristic marks of self-nature, they are not seen but are only imagined. In one sense they are graspable, but in another sense, they are not graspable. BUDDHA

Considering this quote alongside the one by Einstein the question becomes if the contents of consciousness or maya initiate objective consciousness or does objective consciousness devolve to make maya possible? If it does then the first cause is the source of this devolution.

I'm in the minority that believes consciousness devolves and our brains serve as the means to experience maya or our devolved reality.

If I'm in a minority that includes Buddha and Einstein, I cannot feel guilty.

[bernee51]

Bernee

It was objects that facilitated the evolution of the consciousness that allows these objects to be realized.

You appear to have taken by the wrong end the idea that without consciousness the phenomenal universe would not exist.

The sad part is that people argue so much that they will never see the relationship between both sides and just keep arguing.

Fortunately, if one gets beyond argument and contemplates deeper this situation the question of the source and levels of reality becomes fascinating.

Sad but true Nick...few will have your insight.

I teach that the multitudinousness of objects have no reality in themselves but are only seen of the mind and, therefore, are of the nature of maya and a dream. ...It is true that in one sense they are seen and discriminated by the senses as individualized objects; but in another sense, because of the absence of any characteristic marks of self-nature, they are not seen but are only imagined. In one sense they are graspable, but in another sense, they are not graspable. BUDDHA

Considering this quote alongside the one by Einstein the question becomes if the contents of consciousness or maya initiate objective consciousness or does objective consciousness devolve to make maya possible? If it does then the first cause is the source of this devolution.

The contents of consciousness are objective consciousness. It is only 'maya' because it is not recognized as such. It is given its own objective reality independent of the observer.

The evolution of consciousness provided the tool for the emergence of the sense of the 'other' - the establishment of 'objective reality'

I'm in the minority that believes consciousness devolves and our brains serve as the means to experience maya or our devolved reality.

If I'm in a minority that includes Buddha and Einstein, I cannot feel guilty.

The Buddha also said:

"Investigate the validity of my teachings as you would examine the purity of gold, rubbing it against a stone, hammering it, melting it. Do not accept my words simply out of respect for me. Accept them when you see that they are true"