Does The First Cause Need To Be Infinite Or Eternal?

[pratt]

I am thinking about the first cause. We know shit about first cause, we can theorise, guess, interpolate, extrapolate, philosophised, mathematicized or whatever about first cause, but why does some thinks that the first cause is etenal or infinote.

 

Lets assume there is a first cause, the universe comes about from "1st Cause".

 

My question is why the "IT" must be eternal as claimed by some people, because IT was written in some old fairy tale?

 

Why can't it be like someone who manufactures the bomb and gets blown up in the process and became a BIG BANG or whatever and exists no more?

[boftx]

M-theory.

[Astreja]

Good point, Pratt.  Causes seem to be rather fleeting things rather than permanent fixtures.

 

And wouldn't an "eternal cause" be, well, eternally causing, rather than resting on its laurels?

 

The idea of an entity causing the Big Bang would explain the lack of evidence for the entity if it somehow got destroyed in the process... And it would put an interesting spin on pantheism, with bits and pieces of divine stuff splattered as far as our deep-field telescopes can see.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I guess it just makes sense that a living being with the ability to be the first cause would be eternal. I just don't see how it could not be, if a living being was the first cause. The first cause could have been something that was not alive, but was eternal. It could have just been there. It doesn't necessarily need to be eternal just because a book of fairy tales says so. It could simply be eternal.

[boftx]

Try a different view. Instead of "God" as creator, why not God as creation?

[pratt]

God created then he/she/it died?

[Overcame Faith]

I don't think it would necessarily have to be eternal, but at least up until the time of creation, it had to have always been in existence. Otherwise, it, too, would have to have a cause and could not have been the first cause. Once everything is created, it could die and not violate the first cause requirement.

[BlackCat]

I've been thinking about this alot too (thanks to Nat  ) The more I think about this, the more it makes sense that 'something' is eternal or infinite, and rather than thinking of this 'something' as 'the first', it would always be 'causing' Big Bangs or whatever.  So, I would think of 'the First Cause' as 'The Eternal Causer'.  So everything that is in existence is part of this 'Eternal Causer'.  The one thing that I agree on with Nat in his thread, is that there has to have always been something.  I accept this as logical.  If I doubted it, I might as well doubt my own existence which I don't. 

 

Things like 'love' and beauty, and stuff like that, make me wonder if there is more to this 'Eternal Causer' than 'mindless' energy ('minds' are brought into existence by this 'Eternal Causer'??) , but it seems unlikely and daft to suppose there is anything like 'life after death'. 

[Overcame Faith]

If we accept that there must have been a "first cause" and this "first cause" had to have an uncaused existence, then the universe itself could fulfill this role if we accept that it was always in existence in some form or another.  Of course, the very fact that "first cause" requires something uncaused to be in existence, is actually a paradox because "first cause" says that everything is caused by something.  The paradox comes in because the "first causer" was uncaused which therefore says, contrary to the very notion of "first cause", that not everything has a "first cause".  Which brings us to the true rule.  That rule is that there was something which was uncaused which accounts for everything else.  And that could be the universe, itself, and not necessarily a deity.

 

Therefore, the idea of "first cause" could serve as an argument that no deity is needed only something which was uncaused and which accounts for everything else.  That something could just as easily be the universe as it could be a creator deity.

 

What is more, the "first cause" does not require only one "first causer".  There could be multiple first causers (multiverses, multiple deities, etc.) so long as they are all uncaused.  I see nothing in the concept which requires a single deity as the three Abrahamic religions posit.

[Ouroboros]

The whole problem arises from our lack of understanding time, causation, space, energy, existence, and so on. We create models to explain how these things work in this world, this time, right here and now, but we don't have explanations how the things beyond our limited view work.

 

For starters, like you said Pratt, we don't know about the first cause, but even worse, we really don't understand causality at all. If a tree falls in the forest, what caused it? The wind? Old age? Loose soil? Or all of them? What was the effect? A tree fell, hit another tree, hit a squirrel, scared some animals, tore up dirt. In other words, multiple causes and multiple effect, simultaneous. The "first" might not exist. There could be many. Besides, causality seems to break down at quantum level. Perhaps self-causation is possible, but we just can't understand it from our human view.

 

In the end, only speculation.

[midniterider]

The whole problem arises from our lack of understanding time, causation, space, energy, existence, and so on. We create models to explain how these things work in this world, this time, right here and now, but we don't have explanations how the things beyond our limited view work.For starters, like you said Pratt, we don't know about the first cause, but even worse, we really don't understand causality at all. If a tree falls in the forest, what caused it? The wind? Old age? Loose soil? Or all of them? What was the effect? A tree fell, hit another tree, hit a squirrel, scared some animals, tore up dirt. In other words, multiple causes and multiple effect, simultaneous. The "first" might not exist. There could be many. Besides, causality seems to break down at quantum level. Perhaps self-causation is possible, but we just can't understand it from our human view.In the end, only speculation.

I thought gravity made things fall? Haha Or maybe the Spirit of Heaviness.

[boftx]

Why does there need to be a first cause at all? We could be in a no-cause Mulitverse.

[Ouroboros]

I thought gravity made things fall? Haha Or maybe the Spirit of Heaviness.

One more cause added to the list. Check.

 

Oh, and pixies. They're the ones making gravity work.

[TrueFreedom]

Pandeism: God sacrificed himself to become the universe

[Ouroboros]

Pantstheism. He or she with the biggest pants rules.

[boftx]

Pantstheism. He or she with the biggest pants rules.

 

Do you mean the biggest bulge in his pants? I can claim that! (Feels like about half my intestines are next to my balls at times.)

[Ouroboros]

Do you mean the biggest bulge in his pants? I can claim that! (Feels like about half my intestines are next to my balls at times.)

The banana argument proves it!

[sdelsolray]

I am thinking about the first cause. We know shit about first cause, we can theorise, guess, interpolate, extrapolate, philosophised, mathematicized or whatever about first cause, but why does some thinks that the first cause is etenal or infinote.

 

Lets assume there is a first cause, the universe comes about from "1st Cause".

 

My question is why the "IT" must be eternal as claimed by some people, because IT was written in some old fairy tale?

 

Why can't it be like someone who manufactures the bomb and gets blown up in the process and became a BIG BANG or whatever and exists no more?

To be a first cause requires two things.  It must be "first" and it must be a "cause".  That's it.  It need be nothing else.