first

A) “Who or what made God?”

B) “The question assumes that God is the sort of being whose existence is contingent on something else.”

A) “Why couldn’t God be like that?”

B) “Well, one of the most basic ideas about God is that God is the First Cause.”

A) “…but what would have caused this ‘First Cause’…?”

B) “I said First, which means nothing before.”

62 thoughts on “first”

  1. He explains in great detail about how we live in a Flat Universe

    The universe consists of 80% Dark Matter
    74% of the mass-energy of the universe is Dark Energy

    Most of the mass of a proton comes from the empty space between the quarks, not from the quarks themselves.
    Likewise, the dark energy mentioned above, is found in empty space.

    The sum total of energy in the universe has been shown to be precisely zero

    A flat, zero energy universe can self-create theoretically, but nothing in our models prevents it from being formed out of a previous multi-verse, though that theory is not necessary to explain the origin of the universe naturally.

    He also said that the universe will expand forever, so that any life that evolves in 100 billion years on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy, will look out into space and see nothing passed their own galaxy. They won’t see the cosmic microwave background radiation, black holes, dark matter or anything. The universe that they conceive of through their observations will be wrong, and they’ll never know.

    I’ve obviously skipped over pretty much everything, but if you find a spare hour some time, you’ll find it extremely fascinating, Lawrence Krauss is an absolute genius, and a very clear speaker too.

  2. this is all really interesting (and of course speculative) stuff – but what part if it has anything to do with First Causes, etc.

    A couple of points. If you’re wanting to rule out the need for a God/First Cause, then theoretical physics isn’t the best way to do it. Also, the philosophical distinction still holds between natural phenomena (phenomena occurring in [and generated within] ‘nature’) and non-(super)-natural phenomena (phenomena distinct from nature).

  3. No it’s not all speculative, much of it is experimentally verified, especially the quantum stuff. The most accurate predictions in science are in the field of quantum physics. Dark matter isn’t just a theoretical concept, it’s an observed reality. Ever heard of gravitational lensing?

    All of it has to do with first causes, because it sets up an uncaused universe.

  4. No, it’s all speculative if you dig deep enough. Even gravity is not fully understood. At the ‘bottom of nature’, so to speak, we will always have more to learn about how things work, discover more laws (or ‘tendencies’ or ‘habits’ some say) of nature, etc. Are we really so naive to think we’ve got to the bottom of things!? The history of science should teach us to be more patient.

    But more than this, there is a difference between description and explanation. Description (the scientific endeavour) is one kind of explanation. Even if we had a complete scientific (and thus descriptive) account of all natural phenomena (from QM, to evolution, to abiogenesis, to cosmology – every question answered, every law discovered), there are other accounts which do not contradict these scientific accounts.

    Give an explanation for why the kettle is boiling! Explanation 1, the switch being flicked allows the electric current to power and heat the element, causing a change in the chemical state of the water, etc. Explanation 2, I wanted tea. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. They actually complete and reinforce one another. Just different ways of considering the same phenomena.

  5. No,these are not mutually exclusive. The first one doesn’t explains why the switch was flicked. And the second one doesn’t really explains anything, it is just the cause. If you want to know generally why the kettle is boiling, then the second explanation is irrelevant and doesn’t explain anything, but if you want to know about a specific local event, then you don’t need the first explanation, because (I presume) you already know how does it works, so the second explanation will be fine. Don’t forget that this single event could have more explanation, depending on what kind of information I need, and because different kinds of information explains thing differently, it is only the perspective. The world is the same, only people try make it different from another person’s world. So it is possible that every person on Earth is wrong about the world, and it is also possible that everybody will be wrong for an undefined time, I know this is a bit polarized, but I just wanted to say that nothing is infinitely valid. If a huge mass believes in something that doesn’t mean it is correct. We cannot observe the world, and argue about it using only pure logic. Logic is just a tool not a goal. Sorry but whether you are religious or not, the arguments here are only based on logic. And will always be, because we cannot understand every aspect of the world equally, for example it is likely that a biologist wouldn’t be able to defend the general theory of relativity than a physicist. We are not geniuses in everything that is why we use logic, rhetoric, and recline upon others.

  6. ? Have you never heared of public computer rooms in the universities and dormitories? Or the english don’t use the word dormitory for the accomodation of students?

    Anyway what do you think about my previous post?

  7. i guess not :)

    but yeah, you seem to be mostly agreeing that multiple explanations can co-exist with no conflict – and even compliment one another

Comments are closed.