All Origin theories/beliefs are nonsense

Where did the universe come from? Is there any possibility of a satisfactory answer? If God made the universe, where did God come from? If there was a Big Bang, where did it come from? The question repeats to infinity.

So, does the idea of a First Cause make any sense at all? In trying to trace events back through time like neatly ordered dominoes, might we be mistaking the very nature of causality?

Name an instance of simple cause and effect, where one and only one event leads clearly to one and only one outcome. Say a dog runs into a table and knocks over a glass of milk. For practical purposes, you treat it as cause and effect--the dog was the cause, spilled milk the effect. Or maybe you'll pick out a wobbly leg on the table, or a child chasing the dog. In any case, it's very useful, this view; you can discipline the dog or child, fix the wobbly leg, but is it an accurate account of what happened? Zeroing in on the dog and the glass of milk, our "cause and effect," we ignore the majority of what was happening: your spouse moved the table two inches to the left three days ago; the table was made in a factory 300 miles away that does mediocre work; the dog is part collie; you were talking to the neighbor. Gravity was drawing the glass toward the floor. It goes on forever, and not in just one direction. To be thorough, you can't stop short of everything, absolutely everything.

It's not necessary to think of all these things in relation to the spilled milk. It's quite handy that you've filtered the dog and the milk from all that background, and moreso if you're investigating a crime or diagnosing an illness, but if you're asking the Big Question, then what can you filter out? If you're asking about the whole universe, then what can you discard as irrelevant?

It's the wrong strategy. The universe didn't "come from" anywhere--it's still there, right here.

Do you disagree?

Does no one think the universe had to come from somewhere? Does what I wrote make sense? I'd like to see this matter discussed, as it underpins a lot of the debate here and in R/S.

what about these little atom thing things they found which seem to flit in and out of existence etc without a cause?

I don't know the details; Gnome or O'nus will scientifically clarify I'm sure.



Anyway I'm a fan of the Big Crunch.

I don't think you can ask about the universe. Sorry for more of my "objective observer talk", but it's exactly what you need in this case, which is similar to the one in R/S. Nobody from this universe can observe his own creation, since he is a part of this universe.

Cause and effect are merely a model used by the human mind to categorize the happenings of the world. Cause and effect are always defined by the highest degree of separation and magnification. To understand WHY things happen you (1) tear them apart, (2) magnify what you are seeing, (3) Look at what's happening now that you've changed what you're looking at. But, you see, you didn't actually change anything except the object you're looking at. To believe that this now gives you the authority to distinguish between cause and effect is an illusion.

Still, as a scientific model, cause and effect are valid. At least as long as you keep splitting the things you find. At some point you will see that your idea of cause and effect was unfounded. I believe that this is what modern physics has found but I am not an expert in this field. So, that cause and effect are more than a model cannot be proven and is, to my understanding, unlikely. They are a practical illusion, just like the concept of the "I", brought forth by mistaking an artificial separation for unseparated reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

what about these little atom thing things they found which seem to flit in and out of existence etc without a cause?

I don't know the details; Gnome or O'nus will scientifically clarify I'm sure.

Anyway I'm a fan of the Big Crunch.

---

I believe Hawking proved that we live in an open universe. Not sure though, mainly because I can't see how you'd prove that. He did, however prove that the universe was once infinitely dense, essentially proving that the universe had a beginning. And, if it had no beginning, everything theoretically possible would have already happened, because there would be an infinite amount of time between now and the non-existent beginning of time. Of course, if there was a beginning, why the infinite wait before the beginning? But then again, if there was no universe, there was no time, since space and time are wound together. So, I say there is a beginning. What caused it, I can't say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Cause and effect are merely a model used by the human mind to categorize the happenings of the world. Cause and effect are always defined by the highest degree of separation and magnification. To understand WHY things happen you (1) tear them apart, (2) magnify what you are seeing, (3) Look at what's happening now that you've changed what you're looking at. But, you see, you didn't actually change anything except the object you're looking at. To believe that this now gives you the authority to distinguish between cause and effect is an illusion.

Still, as a scientific model, cause and effect are valid. At least as long as you keep splitting the things you find. At some point you will see that your idea of cause and effect was unfounded. I believe that this is what modern physics has found but I am not an expert in this field. So, that cause and effect are more than a model cannot be proven and is, to my understanding, unlikely. They are a practical illusion, just like the concept of the "I", brought forth by mistaking an artificial separation for unseparated reality.

---

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Anyway I'm a fan of the Big Crunch.

---

Sounds tasty.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

what about these little atom thing things they found which seem to flit in and out of existence etc without a cause?

I don't know the details; Gnome or O'nus will scientifically clarify I'm sure.

---

They don't explain anything. They have just opened more questions about... existence. It's like the more knowledge we have, the more questions we have.

Quote:

---

Anyway I'm a fan of the Big Crunch.

---

The universe is accelerating... Big Rip :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

They don't explain anything. They have just opened more questions about... existence. It's like the more knowledge we have, the more questions we have.

---

i think we have less questions than 200 years ago. Just a hunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

i think we have less questions than 200 years ago. Just a hunch.

---

Not really. Before relativity and quantum mechanics, it was widely believed within the scientific community that all major questions about physics had been answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Not really. Before relativity and quantum mechanics, it was widely believed within the scientific community that all major questions about physics had been answered.

---

qft

We have a better understanding, but we're only beginning to know how little we know.

Actually I've thought about this a lot before.

As far as we can tell, causality tells us that either:

There was a first cause, which is a paradox because every cause is itself an effect which requires a cause, or;

There are infinite causes, which is a paradox because it does not explain where everything came from.

And therefore the only logical conclusion to make is that causality is not the only logic system.

Thinking about it this makes sense, because causality is clearly a result of being in a universe with one temporal dimension.

Perhaps there is an extraverse with multiple temporal dimensions, which therefore has a logic system in which there is no paradox, but we cannot possibly comprehend this logic system?

As far as I can tell that answers your question as much as we possibly can. :P