Logic Times

First Cause

Posted by Aslan. Comments (7)

Either we are created (First Cause) or we are not (always existing in an infinite regression of "first" causes). We observe that cause and effect is an inflexible law in our physical world. If we conclude that the universe is not created (it has always existed), we violate observation. We would be suggesting something foreign to physical phenomena to explain this most important question. If, however, one posits a Creator, then logic is preserved. Who created the Creator? No one – a Creator does not require a cause. Why is this so?

Any requirement for a cause is necessitated by time. When you start bleeding, you search for a cause. A cat scratched you. This happened first - the cat scratched you and you bled. Notice the linkage to time. You cannot have the opposite - you bleeding and then the cat scratch you. Time is the "matrix" in which cause and effect are embedded. And every state in this universe extends from a previous state.

What happens if we get rid of time? Impossible for our brains to get around this concept - we are prisoners of time. But from a standpoint of definitions, something independent of time is therefore independent of cause and effect. Consider a state of stasis or unchanging existence. There is no before and after - just existence. Since there is no before, there is no need to answer the question, "what came before...?" A Creator independent of time by definition has no beginning and requires no cause. And for this definition to be useful to us, there would need to be a beginning to the universe before which we cannot observe and time would need to be a physical, captive aspect of the universe. Einstein demonstrated that both of these requirements are satisfied!

Certainly, there is no proof of a Creator as first cause, just as there is no proof of existence without cause. However, the former, using pre-Relativity definitions, fits with post-Relativity observation, while the latter violates observation altogether.

Comments

1: thomaspaul

October 3, 2004 06:13am EST

Was proof of cause and effect one of the key outcomes of Einstein's theories? What are you saying Albert Einstein's Relativity theory demonstrated exactly? Your final argument hinges on God creating time. What theory suggests that time had to be created? Does God creating the universe dictate he created time at that time?

{Aslan: Pre-1905, it was always the understanding of science that time was absolute and that velocity was variable. When Einstein demonstrated the relative relationship of objects in motion compared to an absolute speed (light), he demonstrated the relativity of time and space. For time dilation to occur, it has to be a physical variable - that is why it is the fourth dimension and not mathematically different from space coordinates. In other words, time, too, began, just like space, with the Big Bang. This suggests that the Creative Factor preceding the Big Bang, just like it is clearly independent of space (it is not limited by size or color) is independent of the other spatial variable, TIME.}

2: bryan

October 19, 2004 11:12pm EST

You pluck the creator out of time to nullify the question of who caused the creator--neat idea. I don't buy it though. The creator is part of the cause and effect dynamic because a creator creates. I am bleeding because the cat scratched me. I am here because the creator created me. Both entail cause and effect, neither example can be removed from this dynamic. The only way to remove the creator from time is if nothing was created, then your idea of stasis would be true. Of course, this is silly.

{Aslan: I would suggest that, in so defining the Creator, you limit Him and therefore nullify His omnipotence (thereby disqualifying Him as the Creator). You would not argue, I think, that the Creator is a certain shape or weight or that He possessed other limiting physical qualities. Time is nothing more than a physical quality. Your boxing the Creator into a cause and effect frame implies Time is an absolute quality that transcends this universe. We do know, with some certainty, that Time as you understand it ceases to exist at the Big Bang singularity. To imply that the initial creative action required the pre-existence of Time is to violate observation and “leap over” this singularity barrier.

You do raise an interesting point – by what mechanism does a static Creator “begin” some act, which suggests cause and effect. These two postulates share the same potential:

“The Creator, in a conversion from stasis to creativity, introduces cause and effect but is not limited by it.”
“The Creator, by definition (since He creates), possesses some aspect of absolute or ontological time that features cause and effect.”

Both are pie-in-the-sky, but fun. The serious point about my thesis, however, is that the only postulate that satisfies observation and answers the reducto ad absurdum of infinite causes is a Creator independent of time.

Good stuff, bryan.}

(more comments here)