The Cosmological Argument and The Search for a First Cause

Posted March 4, 2014 by Live4theMystery in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on March 31, 2014
by dustproduction



To my knowledge, one of physics biggest embarrassments is the inability to determine that which propelled time and space into it's entropic evolution. The idea that all matter, energy, laws, and constants emerged from a single point in existence for no reason at all. Then through the laws of thermodynamics, after the fast rushing momentum of plasma in plank time, higher states of order developed. Atoms collided, exchanged electrons to create valence euphoria, and new systems came to be. Since the backbone of science depends on cause and effect, it seems quite miraculous that the very origin of these deterministic processes is undetermined. I don't want to automatically conclude it's the result of consciousness or some type of divine intervention, but instead ask if there's anyone who has their theories or knowledge of the possibilities otherwise? Open floor.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 31, 2014

    Physics is not my field so I only know what I read, and commented here because of the assertion that "one of physics biggest embarrassments is..," In fact, the recent discovery was the result of years of effort that bilt on the ideas of Einstein.
    "Stanford University professor Andrei Linde, who helped develop the current inflation theory, said the new results are something he had hoped to see for 30 years."


    I will also stress the point here that this evidence has to be tested, so it is only preliminary evidence for now.

    "You may have learned in physics class that light sets the universe's speed limit, but space-time is an exception; it can stretch faster than the speed of light, (Kent) Irwin (a physicist at Stanford) said."

  • NoetPoet Mar 31, 2014

    I've heard of some scientists talking about our universe being created by a "fluctuation" in a vacuum. Is this the fluctuation to which they are referring?

    Also, that observation strongly suggests that 0 is not really the same thing as *nothing*, unless we take the word "nothing" literally (i.e. no-thing), to mean an absence of definition rather than an absence of anything at all.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 31, 2014

    Here is an astute observation that I ran across:

    "Energy can come from nothing if an equal amount of negative (dark) energy is also created. Like in math where 0 = -10 (negative) + 10 (positive). After that, energy can create matter because Energy = Mass x C squared. So matter and dark matter form and interact. This would actually mean that the total energy of the universe is zero because there is as much dark energy as positive energy.

    It all comes down to the math.

  • Live4theMystery Mar 26, 2014

    @Jim Centi
    Alan Watts is the man. I'd say that searching through the remains of history is conducted within the here and now. Looking backwards is still within the present, because those historical traces are contained within the current moment. Nothing lasts, but nothing is lost, and it's the memories of cascading space time artifacts that leave footnotes imprinted upon a viewable matrix. I'd assume his gestures were referring to himself and his surroundings versus hist chest or head. I find myself continually apologizing for my absence in the heat of these discussions, but am currently enveloped with unfortunate legal commitments to a system that seeks to deplete and strip man of his liberties and freedoms(court drama) tethered with school and work.

    Very interesting. "Inflation theory" has been one of the most physically demanding support systems of the big bang theory. Cosmic inflation, to my knowledge, has experienced many struggles when substantiating it's preeminence, and has served as the theoretical patchwork for the "horizon" and "flatness" problem. I'm sure Mr.Guth is very proud to witness his theory transform into an observable platform. Although measured gravitational waves further reveal the dynamics of universal evolution, we're still left clueless when examining the phenomena which caused this outward momentum. So far as I can tell the "Big Bounce" theory is the only of which can account for eternal ontology, without supposing a more divine conjecture. A question which may forever remain unknown, seeing as how there's no telescope or technology advanced enough to peer into multiple universes.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 18, 2014

    Science, in this case physics (one of physics biggest embarrassments is the......), is an integral part of this conversation.
    Science can be viewed as the opposite side of the coin here so to speak, but this does not negate the fact that the coin has to sides.

    So once again, I will repeat this point: Let's not make this about not about me. My comment response to the topic posed here

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 18, 2014

    Hi dustproduction,

    With respect, I’ll respond to your comment from my non-academic perspective:

    It appears that the difference between you and Watts is that you (as an advocate of science) are motivated to have an objective conceptual experience of the big bang, a point in the past where the universe began….

    ....Watts is suggesting that we not pursue an “objective” conceptual experience of a time in the past where the universe began, but to have a vivid “subjective” experience of the big bang manifesting in the present moment of “now”.

    Of course, we are back to a fundamental problem……within the broadest sense, traditional science rejects human subjective experience as not worthy of consideration.

    In his book, The Taboo of Subjectivity, B. Alan Wallace states that to present a view of reality that ignores human subjective experience, presents an extremely malnourished view of reality.

    Please let’s not get into one of those mundane “I said-you said” exchanges. Neither of us is likely to change our orientation. Can we simply accept that we have divergent views relative to the nature of reality?

    What happened to Live4theMystery? Without his occasional interjections relative to comments, good comments drift into the past and are forgotten.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 17, 2014

    Scientists capture first ever signal from the beginning of the Universe

    It looks like an explosion from an 80s game, but you're looking at the first direct proof of the event that started the Universe—the Big Bang. Those black lines represent the polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which "could have been produced by gravitational waves created by inflation" as predicted by Einstein. If confirmed, it could be one of the biggest scientific discoveries in history.

    Astronomers Discover First Direct Proof of the Big Bang Expansion

    Somebody's going to win a Nobel Prize. At least that's what the physics community is saying after the announcement on Monday that a Harvard team has found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. It's more proof that the Big Bang really was the beginning of it all.


  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 16, 2014

    Does anyone else have ideas relative to his gestures or what he was referring to when he said “in here?”

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 16, 2014

    Hi Live4theMystery,

    I may have made an incorrect assumption when transcribing the Alan Watts talk.

    The seventh paragraph of that comment reads:

    Everyone’s looking backwards to try to find out when it started (chuckle)….you don’t look backwards to find out....you look in here to find out (I assume that he is pointing to his head or chest). (Chuckles from the audience)….See a few of us are starting it now….it’s all flowing out from your consciousness (laughter).

    It would have had more of an impact, if that paragraph had read:

    Everyone’s looking backwards to try to find out when it started (chuckle)….you don’t look backwards to find out....you look in here to find out (waving his arms around the room). (Chuckles from the audience)….See a few of us are starting it now….it’s all flowing out from your consciousness (laughter).

    The best, Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 12, 2014

    Hi NoetPoet,

    It is not possible to answer your question effectively without it being a severe distraction to this topic.

    I suggest that you go to my last topic DEFINITIVE ATHEISM where dustinthewind states “This whole topic then seem a bit bogus.” Her comment was made because I once stated the opinion that dustproduction was an atheist.

    I would like to be clear that I have no problem with individuals who are atheists. I once lived with a woman who was active in a community of atheists until she realized that there are dogmatists in atheism as well as religion.

    If you ask your question in the topic DEFINITIVE ATHEISM and secure dustproduction’s approval to do so, I will re post his comments that caused me to conclude that he was an atheist.

    If you so request and dustproduction agrees, I will also re-post several of dustproductions comments that represented his spamming of my topics.

    I sincerely hope that this can be avoided, because many pages of cutting and pasting would be required and I would prefer to focus on material that contributes to the value of Discussions.

    Your response to this comment is not required in this topic. I hope that further dialogue relative to this matter is not necessary in any topic.

    Best wishes……Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    graybear Mar 10, 2014

    Hi Live4theMystery,

    Kilauea, Hawaii (May 7,2013)-A groundbreaking paper published last week sheds new light on the theory of gravity and the potential to significantly impact global issues facing the human race, including alternative energy sources.

    "Nassim Haramein, Director of Research at the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics (HIVP) has authored a paper titled "Quantum gravity and the Holographic Mass,"which has been validated and published in the peer review journal, Physics Review and Research International. This paper discusses Haramein's "Connected Universe" theory, which offers a new and alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations. Haramein's work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space..."


    "The Schwarzschild Proton"...A radio broadcasted interview with Haramein by theREDICE creations posted on youtube.


    resonance is .org

    regards gray

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2014

    "...the artistry of the two Dusts at destroying topics"

    And what is that supposed to mean?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 09, 2014

    I find myself between a rock and a hard place.

    I was fully committed to detach from Discussions and the artistry of the two Dusts at destroying topics.

    Then while exploring the contents of an old storage box, I discovered an old Walkman, replaced the batteries, turned it on and the universe dropped a gem into my lap relative to the big bang; it simply demands to be posted.

    The following is a transcript taken from a four part talk by Alan Watts entitled Talks on Worldly Religions. AlanWatts is credited with bringing Eastern thought to the West.

    “The universe didn't come into existence sometime off in the past; it is coming into existence now……this is the point where the universe comes into existence. What we call the past is its wake, its echo, its reverberation…like the wake of a ship.

    The wake starts from the nose....the bow of the ship….that is where the wake is created. So in the same way the whole cosmos is created from this point called here and now…..this is the point of the big bang.

    Everyone’s looking backwards to try to find out when it started (chuckle)….you don’t look backwards to find out....you look in here to find out (I assume that he is pointing to his head or chest). (Chuckles from the audience)….See a few of us are starting it now….it’s all flowing out from your consciousness (laughter).

    Only because you don’t know that and you've forgotten it….you’re looking back behind you and saying hmmm, wonder how I got involved in all this….maybe it was my father and mother or their father and mother….you go back and you pass the buck and the blame for everything all the way down the line…..see……ha, ha, you’re looking in the wrong direction (laughter).

    You are starting it now….generating all this….the past is just echoes of what you did before. After all, you were you’re father and mother (laughing), their father and mother and so on, all the way back…..same old you….(laughing).

    It’s beautiful…..well, they’re going to stop now and have an intermission…..”

    I wouldn't suggest referring to the subjective experience of Alan Watts as bogus; you could have an army of aliens jumping on your ass.

    Also, if you must have citations, sources or references, contact Roy of Hollywood at KPFK, Los Angeles. He will be able to tell you where copies of this talk can be purchased.

    Love, gratitude, forgiveness and returning to very selective posting……Jim

  • Live4theMystery Mar 09, 2014


    I'll need to look more deeply into your hypothesis. Do you have any references which illuminate this theory in greater detail? When looking within the context of a first cause, as Noetpoet suggested, it becomes absurd to isolate an initial series of conditions. I now think it's interesting to speculate that upon every collapse of a universe, through union of black holes, that it is possible a universe is created out of all of time and space coalescing into itself. Would a singularity even be nesecarry when operating under this assumption? It could be identified as the lowest energy state I guess, but theoretically could a universe evolve simply from all the mass and energy being drawn into the depths of a black hole, and upon all that mass and energy accumulating, that it explodes outward instantly again? From this perspective it would be irrelevant to create an abstract series of conditions, because the conditions could be embedded within the collapse itself. I'm not a physics major, but have a thirst for understanding.

  • Live4theMystery Mar 09, 2014


    I'm most certainly amused by your reasoning. I maintain no objections to this way of thinking, even though it is a lot for the ego to stomach. This interpretation of space time disables Through th the premise of the cosmological argument. As determinism would suggest, it is difficult to establish a first origin and cause to any phenomena. A first cause or premise is determined by whatever linear formation is being measured, such as a line segment drawn within a graph. If we we're to draw this spatial-temporal line to a point directly before the big bang from the present moment, you could then identify that as a first premise for the line in which we're measuring. A first cause is possible only when referential dimensional points are made to identify with. However, everyday experiences have guided the enterprise of reasoning, so in relationship to a first cause I understand your argument, but I would say your objection couldn't even exist without everyday experiences. We wouldn't even
    have a conceptual grasp of reality if the empirical method didn't attempt to make sense of things that occur within everyday experience. Not to say our observationally based results are vaild considering we're an organism that uses physical senses and cognition to undergo inquiry. For example, butterflies are subject to pentachromacy, so their grasp of the color spectrum and reality in effect is different than ours. I don't want to get into a descartes based argument, so I will leave it at that. I ask, in relation to your statement, if you subscribe to the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition or eternal inflation theory? Perhaps using the phrase "first cause" in the title detracts from the thought I intended to be examined. To redefine the terms of my verbage, my question is as follows "What does one presume occurred directly before the big bang?" The big crunch hypothesis is interesting and would almost support the idea of an eternal universe which builds and inevitably breaks down it's contents through black holes. The eternal argument seems more valid than the God argument, because then one is left with the paradox of what created God. Thank you for the stepping stone to higher thinking :)

  • Anonymous Icon

    graybear Mar 07, 2014

    Hi Noetpoet,

    You are right, the whole thing started when a Catholic Priest and Belgiums most famous astronomer named Abbe Georges Lamaitre gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology on his "Primeval Atom" theory. Albert Einstein was in town visiting the Mount Wilson Observatory where Edwin Hubble made his historic observations. Einstein and Hubble attended the lecture. After the lecture Einstein stood up and announced that what he had just heard was "the most beautiful and satisfying interpretation I have listened to" and went on to confess that creating the "cosmological constant" was "the biggest blunder" of his life (I wonder if it was).

    "It also gave Stephen Hawking a moment of insight. By reversing the direction of time, and running the event Penrose was describing backward, Stephen realized that he had a perfect model for the Big Bang. A singularity he argued, was what in Einstein's mathematics corresponded to Lamaitre's primeval atom; and it would explode outward with the Big Bang, reversing the dynamics of a black hole and releasing matter as it evolved. Steven and Roger Penrose published a paper in 1970 which proved mathematically that, if Einstein's mathematics were correct, a singularity had to result from a black hole, and had to exist at the start of the universe. This produced a crisis for physics: how could physics explain everything if its laws did not apply at the very birth of the universe? But, in many physicists' minds, it was also enough to seal the argument for the universe beginning with a Big Bang. After all, the paper argued that if relativity as explained by Einstein is correct...and all the evidence from observation seems to keep confirming it...then the universe must have started with a Big Bang explosion out of a singularity. The equations do not allow an alternative." Stephen Hawking's Universe by David Filkin

    In my view it was a blunder to reverse the direction of time and assume a singularity. Penrose's assumption that if Einsteins equations were correct, a singularity had to result from a black hole is bogus. The black hole event is the model for the 'strong force'. It doesn't result in a singularity, it results in creation.

    regards gray

  • NoetPoet Mar 06, 2014

    Hi graybear,

    You raise a good point, there is a distinct possibility that the Big Bang theory is wrong. I suspect that the main reason the Big Bang theory has become so popular, and was even thought up in the first place, is because it's an artifact of culturally ingrained Judeo-Christian thinking.

  • Anonymous Icon

    graybear Mar 06, 2014

    In my view the first step to a true understanding of the creation of matter is to ignore the big bang nonsense. I know this will be difficult but it never was anything more than a mathematical adventure. There never was any proof. All of the background radiation attributed to big bang could be the sound of zero point energy creating mass.

    Early in the development of quantum mechanics the 'strong force' was observed; a mysterious force that keeps the protons in the nucleus of an atom from repelling each other and destabilizing the structure of the atom, and then it was forgotten. I postulate that this 'strong force' is a kind of conduit that forces zero point energy to collapse into an explosive condensation that manifests itself as gravity,electrons, light and the positive charge of protons.

    This process would account for charge (minus-collapsing, plus-expanding) and the electronic organization of matter/electromagnetic force.

    regards gray

  • NoetPoet Mar 05, 2014

    I actually think it's pretty impressive that physicists have thus far managed to trace the history of the universe back to the first few moments after the Big Bang. Especially when you consider that our brains evolved to help us deal with predators and hunt animals, not to uncover the deepest secrets of the universe.

    In my opinion this fundamental question of a first cause is inherently flawed, and the case for a first cause is self-contradicting. I'd say the idea of a first cause came from people's observations of everyday phenomena, particularly the observation that every person begins life at birth. But is it appropriate to take such observations derived from everyday experience and project them onto the universe itself? Maybe that's a moot question anyway, because if you look more closely at everyday phenomena which appear to have a beginning (and an end), then you realize that you can't truly identify a definite beginning point for anything.

    Scientists say that "before" the Big Bang, the universe was a singularity. But a singularity is not the same thing as absolute nothingness, and we have no reason to believe that this primal singularity didn't have any sort of causal influences acting on it (thus making it inherently unstable), or that those causal influences didn't in turn have their own causal influences. Indeed, I think it is far more plausible that the universe is part of an infinite chain of causality with no ultimate beginning.

  • Live4theMystery Mar 04, 2014

    My question eluded to any theories in physics that have a possible explanation. If we can rewind 14.5 billion years to this point, it seems astonishing we haven't isolated the first cause. How do you propose we'd even proceed in this investigation? It is miraculous, if we've come this far in our level of scientific inquiry and still can't answer this fundamental question that's existed since the beginning of philosophy. I don't want to turn this into a classic case of spiritual credulity. I'm simply asking if anyone has interesting ideas about the subject, or whether or not there exists academic accounts of the possible scenarios that provoked the big bang. Anyone's response qualifies as "knowledge" in this case. Not to say it will have epistemic validity. It's just an interesting question and I enjoy hearing the input of others

  • NoetPoet Mar 04, 2014

    There's nothing miraculous about it, it's just a horizon over which we can't see yet.

    What qualifies as "knowledge" of other possibilities in this case?

Stay in touch with IONS