Bernard Russell and the First Cause

[4gold]

In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”

This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

[4gold]

Don't you see that you're also effectively saying that "if the cause of the universe itself has no beginning then the universe has no cause". One cosmological model called Eternal Inflation is exactly this kind of cause. This is why I keep pointing out that God has many other equivalences.

You substituted the word "God" with the phrase "the cause of the universe". I assume that you did this because you acknowledge that this universe has a beginning, and therefore was caused (but I don't want to put words into your mouth, so stop me here, if necessary).

So if we state that eternal inflation="the cause of the universe", we still run into a problem. Even eternally inflating universes likely have a beginning .

At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning. I believe this for two reasons. The first is the fact that, as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past.

I can predict where you're going to head next, but I want you to respond first and see if we are on the same wavelength or not.

[4gold]

As an addition to QED's talk of Eternal inflation (though I have to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about)

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

I have lately been reading up on Alan Guth's Big bubble universe theory, and I have just ordered his book The Inflationary Universe (there is a good review of the book here).

From what I understand of it (my knowledge of physics is pretty average I would say), by googling it, if there ever were a theory in cosmology that comes even close to disprove God, it certainly is this one. Or at least, there is very little place for a God in this theory.

This theory allegedly solves a lot a problems, and have very neat explanations for cosmological issues, plus it seems that it has become somewhat widely accepted. Extremely short simplified version: His theory basically pictures the entire cosmos (not only our local universe, which does have a beginning) as a huge fractal, with no beginning or end. Our visible universe was spawned from a bubble, and will itself spawn new bubbles. I like this theory, because the only answer I logically can see to the infinite regress, is infinity, i.e. the universe has always been, and will be.

So I think this theory corresponds well with what Bertrand Russell said.

Thank you for responding! I am not as well-versed as you are on eternal inflation, and so I appreciate it when those who are better informed on certain areas fill in the blanks for me.

Even Guth himself states that eternal inflation likely has a beginning.

So wouldn't the problem of the First Cause still exist?

[The Corinthian]

Thank you for responding! I am not as well-versed as you are on eternal inflation, and so I appreciate it when those who are better informed on certain areas fill in the blanks for me.

Even Guth himself states that eternal inflation likely has a beginning.

So wouldn't the problem of the First Cause still exist? [My emphasis]

Neither am I (trust me, I'm really not, I just find his theory extremely interesting and humbly try to understand it), but I hope to be once I receive the book.

Yes, you are completely right. I have read others speculate on his theory, who says the universe had neither beginning nor end, but as he says it himself:

So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the
answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I
would not want to place a large bet on the issue.

As the way I see it, unless something could appear out of absolutely nothing - which logically doesn't make sense, as there would be absolutely nothing to set anything off, and absolutely nothing for anything to appear from (even God) - everything has always been, and always will be. Logically, I can see no way around this. (I acknowledge that this is an argument from ignorance).

Either nothing ever was, or everything always was. Since we are here, I see the concept of "absolutely nothing" as an impossibility, thus everything always was.
The cool thing is that we can say something about the "cycle" (it doesn't go in circles) itself which runs forever. I see it as an eternal cycle in the form of a fractal universe of eternal inflations - eternal inflations spawned by eternal inflations, spawning new eternal inflations. On a local scale there are beginnings, but on an ultimate cosmological scale there aren't any. It's like an infinity of something spawning new infinities, but it's all infinite.

(hope it made sense)

... My head hurts.

[bernee51]

I have to say that our imagination seems poverty stricken if we have to resort to the familiar model of a sentient agent going about creating things (like some inventor busy in his garage) to serve as a first cause. Starting a causal chain with something modelled on a product that only emerges after billions of years and countless more events is incomprehensible to me. We can offer a well-reasoned explanation for the emergence of sentient agents like us from far humbler beginnings, but not the other way around. Having an infinitely knowledgeable and powerful being as the primitive for everything else seems infinitely more elaborate than is actually necessary.

The universe is clearly evolving from a beginning of sorts. If it has a cause then I think it's pretty obvious that it lies outside the universe. We can call this external thing a meta-universe, a universe generator, a God etc. To be a God I would suggest it has to be shown to fit our familiar model of a sentient agent purposefully creating things. What do we know about our universe that can help us tell this apart from any other meta-universe (apart from scripture)?

Eternal Inflation as a cosmological model is functionally equivalent to a creator God in respect of its capacity for providence. Just because it provides for us does not imply that it is purposeful. I can't speak for Russel, but it seems obvious to me that we're no wiser since the discovery of the Big-Bang.

It sounds to me that you disagree with Russell that there is no such thing as a First Cause, or that if there is, there is no reason to believe this universe has no cause.

I think the Big Bang put to rest that argument, which makes us at least a little wiser since its discovery. We now know this universe had a beginning, and as such, it had a cause. I'm not sure if we'll ever figure it out scientifically, or if it will remain eternally a philosophical question. I agree with you that the Big Bang does not necessarily presuppose a sentient being, but it does seem to wipe out the argument that this universe is without cause.

All the Big Bang tends to indicate is the universe as we perceive it seems to have had a beginning. I can see no reason why the universe in some form or another cannot have always existed. At this stage we do not know what form the 'other' may have taken...and may never know.

[McCulloch]

If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause.

How do you know that?

If the string of causes were infinitely long, the term "beginning" would have no meaning. There would be no beginning in an infinite string of cause and effect.

If the string of causes were finite, "beginning", as we are using it in our debate, would be the first effect after the first cause.

You are assuming what is being debated. I am not talking about an infinite string of causes. What if there was something that had a beginning but no cause?

[4gold]

You are assuming what is being debated. I am not talking about an infinite string of causes. What if there was something that had a beginning but no cause?

If you believe in free will, there can be events with a beginning with an uncaused cause (Personally, I am more of a compatibilist than a free will advocate, but that is an entirely separate thread).

I cannot imagine what event you are describing that has a beginning but no cause. Do you have examples?

[4gold]

Neither am I (trust me, I'm really not, I just find his theory extremely interesting and humbly try to understand it), but I hope to be once I receive the book.

Yes, you are completely right. I have read others speculate on his theory, who says the universe had neither beginning nor end, but as he says it himself:

So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the
answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I
would not want to place a large bet on the issue.

As the way I see it, unless something could appear out of absolutely nothing - which logically doesn't make sense, as there would be absolutely nothing to set anything off, and absolutely nothing for anything to appear from (even God) - everything has always been, and always will be. Logically, I can see no way around this. (I acknowledge that this is an argument from ignorance).

Either nothing ever was, or everything always was. Since we are here, I see the concept of "absolutely nothing" as an impossibility, thus everything always was.
The cool thing is that we can say something about the "cycle" (it doesn't go in circles) itself which runs forever. I see it as an eternal cycle in the form of a fractal universe of eternal inflations - eternal inflations spawned by eternal inflations, spawning new eternal inflations. On a local scale there are beginnings, but on an ultimate cosmological scale there aren't any. It's like an infinity of something spawning new infinities, but it's all infinite.

(hope it made sense)

... My head hurts.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

And that's where the crux of this argument lies. If something cannot come from nothing, then there had to be a first cause, or else something would never had appeared. Or at least that's how I see it.

[4gold]

All the Big Bang tends to indicate is the universe as we perceive it seems to have had a beginning. I can see no reason why the universe in some form or another cannot have always existed. At this stage we do not know what form the 'other' may have taken...and may never know.

Unlike Bertrand Russell's time, we have very good reason to believe that at least this universe has not always existed.

What reasons do you have to believe a universe, in one form or another, has always existed?

[The Corinthian]

And that's where the crux of this argument lies. If something cannot come from nothing, then there had to be a first cause, or else something would never had appeared. Or at least that's how I see it.

Well, if something always was, then there was no first cause to set it off, because there was no beginning. This is the whole idea with everything always being. And also, even a first cause contradicts the concept of "absolute nothing". It is an extremely abstract concept that something specific can just be in existence, without a cause, and without a beginning or end.

This is probably the same as the concept of God always being, but the concept of God would then just be a superfluous addition. It would be easier to say that the universe has always been, than saying that God has always been and then created the universe.

[bernee51]

All the Big Bang tends to indicate is the universe as we perceive it seems to have had a beginning. I can see no reason why the universe in some form or another cannot have always existed. At this stage we do not know what form the 'other' may have taken...and may never know.

Unlike Bertrand Russell's time, we have very good reason to believe that at least this universe has not always existed.

What reasons do you have to believe a universe, in one form or another, has always existed?

As has been noted... as best can be determined the universe as we know it began its existence with the BB. The illusion of cause and effect leads us to beleive that something (or someone) must have caused it to come into existence. We have this illusion of cause and effect due to the concept we call time. Time, other than a human concept does not exist. What we perceive as the passing of time is an eternal emergent 'now'. This 'now, like infinity, existes outside the concept of time. 'Now', also like infinity, cannot be broken down into smaller 'nows'.

If 'now' can only be infinite, it never started and will never end. If the universe is a constantly and infinitely emerging 'now' it follows that the universe in some form or another has always existed.