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?

[Beto]

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.

I have a hard time associating "now" or the "conscious moment" with infinity. If there is only "now", there's no "before" or "after". The expression "always existed" also seems to be misplaced in a context where time is an illusion. What's the difference, if any, between "eternal" and "infinite"?

Time is not external. It is not something we observe passing in the universe. It is created by the dynamical system itself, through the coupling of the fields, at every moment. Time exists "objectively" only in our consciousness. In the unconscious, quantum universe, there is only now.

In the subjective view of time, the unconscious subject or "I" is timeless, since subjective time at any point in the universe encompasses all of what we call objective or cosmic time. Time arises in consciousness over a duration that is quantum in nature. In other words, time arises from the field. It is not part of the field. Within the unconscious, timeless duration, causality is reciprocal. That is to say, the duration is actualized as a whole, and causality goes both ways.

The principles of reciprocal causality are as follows: 1) the cause gives rise to the effect: the effect gives rise to the cause, 2) the parts give rise to the whole: the whole gives rise to the parts, 3) the past causes the future: the future causes the past, and 4) matter gives rise to mind: mind gives rise to matter. In the reciprocal view of causality, the universal consciousness is both the cause and the effect of the universe. The two can only exist together. The universe can only exist as the subject of universal consciousness.

I find interesting how things may have both their beginning and end in the quantum field, and thus (if I understand it correctly) the universe is still in the quantum field, it doesn't actually exist, it's only a possibility that emerges as a "now".

I guess this would also mean the universe is conscious (alive?). Is this what "deist" is about?

[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.

I have a hard time associating "now" or the "conscious moment" with infinity. If there is only "now", there's no "before" or "after".

That us how I see. Terms like 'before' and 'after' can ony be used to supply context.

The expression "always existed" also seems to be misplaced in a context where time is an illusion.

Again for context. Effective communication can only be achieved within the experience of those with whom we are communicating. 'Always existed' is used for that purpose.

What's the difference, if any, between "eternal" and "infinite"?

I suppose infinite can also be used in a spatial sense, eternal in a temporal. Otherwise no difference.

In the reciprocal view of causality, the universal consciousness is both the cause and the effect of the universe. The two can only exist together. The universe can only exist as the subject of universal consciousness.

I find interesting how things may have both their beginning and end in the quantum field, and thus (if I understand it correctly) the universe is still in the quantum field, it doesn't actually exist, it's only a possibility that emerges as a "now".

I guess this would also mean the universe is conscious (alive?). Is this what "deist" is about?

It is what Vedantic thought is about. The universe is not just conscious, but it is consciousness, and this consciousness is Brahman.

Brahman = consciousness as it is expressed in the universe
Atman = consciousness as it is expressed in the individual
Brahman = Atman

Tat twam asi - Thou art that.

It is what mystics of all religious persuasions have been saying for millennia. We are One with the godhead.

It is the Perennial Philosophy of which Huxley wrote so eloquently.

[4gold]

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.

To the best of our knowledge, this universe had a beginning. And to the best of theoretical physics, eternal inflation likely had a beginning.

A sentient being is not a necessity to explain the universe's beginnnings (although I would argue it was a necessity in fact, it is not a necessity in theory), how does one philosophically explain "the beginning"?

[Goat]

As stated, Russell's argument against the First Cause is still valid. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God? If God can be uncaused, why cannot the universe be uncaused?

I'd just like to add that the Big-Bang does not rule out our universe being uncaused. Any precedent cause (and there are plenty of cosmological models that account for this) may equally well lay claim to the title of "uncaused" as God may do.

I also will say that the 'Big Bang' does not say that 'something' was not eternal. The Big Bang model says the universe expanded from a singularity, but doesn't say where the singularity comes from.

[QED]

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).

Time for me to be a bit more precise:
1) By universe I mean the observable collection of galaxies embedded in space-time accessible to instrumentation. By this definition, contrary to popular usage, "universe" is actually the smaller of all potential domains. We do know for example that more unobservable universe lies just beyond our past light-cone. We don't know if this unobservable region is finite or infinite in extent. Neither do we know what other domains, if any, lie beyond the unobservable universe.

2) Beginnings (and for that matter endings) are not necessarily universally the same as events we are used to witnessing. Their character depends on the metrics we use to define them. Some clocks can be employed that will count-out an infinite number of "ticks" in a finite time for example.

Having said that, I am prepared to consider that the observable and unobservable universe to which we are connected did have a cause in some other domain. This is predicted by eternal inflation.

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.

Well, there's likely to be an awful lot of "distance" separating any beginning of an eternally inflating cosmos and any intelligent inhabitants of a particular pocket universe. As an engine for creation it's a great way to churn out wild amounts of stuff without having to go to all the trouble of designing it all, but I don't think that will supply the comfort that some are looking for.

I said as much in different words a few posts back:

Looking for a cause that terminates an otherwise infinite regress is probably a hopeless task. Even if we accepted Hawking and Hartle's ideas, we can ask why the cosmos is that way rather than some other. What we can do though is draw some lines around concepts like purpose and meaning if we can manage to peel back causality far enough.

[Catharsis]

>>>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.<<<

From the beginnings of recorded history, there have been men who believe that all comes from God, and men who reject that truth. At various times and in various places, there have been larger or smaller numbers of theistic believers, but always there have been some who wished to spurn the idea of God and of His involvement in that which He created, to reject God as the First Cause of time, space, matter, and life.

Seventeen hundred years ago, for example, St. Basil the Great admonished his listeners as follows: “Do not say that anything automatically came into being by itself. Nothing springs out of disorder, out of infinity, just by chance. Nothing moves about the universe accidentally, or because of luck.... Such are but the conjectures of uncultured peoples. Nothing is without Providence; nothing is neglected by God.”

Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, “To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing — this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.”

[bernee51]

... but always there have been some who wished to spurn the idea of God and of His involvement in that which He created, to reject God as the First Cause of time, space, matter, and life.

Argument ad populum.

For a great many centuries there were many that believed the sun circled the earth.

Seventeen hundred years ago, for example, St. Basil the Great admonished his listeners as follows: “Do not say that anything automatically came into being by itself. Nothing springs out of disorder, out of infinity, just by chance. Nothing moves about the universe accidentally, or because of luck.... Such are but the conjectures of uncultured peoples. Nothing is without Providence; nothing is neglected by God.”

So?

And 30 centuries before that the ancient Rishis who brought together Vedic thought came up the the Brahman idea.

Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, “To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing — this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.”

Another great of advaita Vedantic thought, Shankara, came up with "Only that is real which does not change and cannot be destroyed"

Isn't exchanging quotes and not having to actually mount an argument fun?

[Goat]

>>>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.<<<

From the beginnings of recorded history, there have been men who believe that all comes from God, and men who reject that truth. At various times and in various places, there have been larger or smaller numbers of theistic believers, but always there have been some who wished to spurn the idea of God and of His involvement in that which He created, to reject God as the First Cause of time, space, matter, and life.

Seventeen hundred years ago, for example, St. Basil the Great admonished his listeners as follows: “Do not say that anything automatically came into being by itself. Nothing springs out of disorder, out of infinity, just by chance. Nothing moves about the universe accidentally, or because of luck.... Such are but the conjectures of uncultured peoples. Nothing is without Providence; nothing is neglected by God.”

Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, “To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing — this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.”

Yes, they did say that. However, from a logic point of view, that is not proper. The fact they said that is a statement of faith, not a matter of logic or deduction.

[QED]

From the beginnings of recorded history, there have been men who believe that all comes from God, and men who reject that truth.

Truth? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can say. There is no established principle upon which this kind of theistic logic is predicated.

At various times and in various places, there have been larger or smaller numbers of theistic believers, but always there have been some who wished to spurn the idea of God and of His involvement in that which He created, to reject God as the First Cause of time, space, matter, and life.

And that's because the truth of the conjecture cannot be established. Not two-thousand years ago, not today.

Seventeen hundred years ago, for example, St. Basil the Great admonished his listeners as follows: “Do not say that anything automatically came into being by itself. Nothing springs out of disorder, out of infinity, just by chance. Nothing moves about the universe accidentally, or because of luck.... Such are but the conjectures of uncultured peoples. Nothing is without Providence; nothing is neglected by God.”

St. Basil wasn't familiar with Quantum Mechanics but I won't admonish him as being uncultured. He simply based his commonsense logic on his experience of everyday statistical mechanics. This wouldn't have been sufficient for him to say accurately what was possible and what was not.

Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, “To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing — this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.”

Again we can excuse an (I assume) intellectual giant of another age for not being familiar with the data and analytical methods we have today. But we can't excuse the obvious fallacy of introducing a creator (something that can interact with mass/energy) to act as first cause -- predicated on the logic that everything needs a cause. This much was pointed out back in the days when your giants were strutting their stuff. It would be nice to think we had moved on a bit further today.

[k-nug]

>>>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.<<<

From the beginnings of recorded history, there have been men who believe that all comes from God, and men who reject that truth. At various times and in various places, there have been larger or smaller numbers of theistic believers, but always there have been some who wished to spurn the idea of God and of His involvement in that which He created, to reject God as the First Cause of time, space, matter, and life.

Seventeen hundred years ago, for example, St. Basil the Great admonished his listeners as follows: “Do not say that anything automatically came into being by itself. Nothing springs out of disorder, out of infinity, just by chance. Nothing moves about the universe accidentally, or because of luck.... Such are but the conjectures of uncultured peoples. Nothing is without Providence; nothing is neglected by God.”

Another giant of that era, St. John Chrysostom, observed that, “To say that creation sprang from pre-existent matter, and not to acknowledge the Creator who created everything out of nothing — this is a mark of the lowest form of stupidity.”

These random quotes do nothing for the argument. I can say believing in God is stupid. And it means nothing.

1700 hundred years ago people used to not bathe everyday. They used to own slaves.

Here is a quote from a 'giant of the era'.

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.-

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.-St. Augustine.

A fable....