in terms of physics there is no certainty about a beginning to the universe, or time. There is in fact physical evidence against the existence of a singularity that renders said theorem a bit pointless (excuse the pun).
There is a school of thought that posits time as fundamental, with good reason as it solves other issues. One such theory says that space, or the matter-energy manifestation, comes and goes, which is when time becomes functional. But fundamental time nevertheless.
Now I get it that it is philosophically a bridge too far, that we “need” a first cause. But, be specific when objecting and don’t just make broad assertions.
Last but not least, as Fred pointed out numerous times, if there is a first state of affairs that caused everything, there is no reason to just accept that to be (a theistic or any other) God.
Hey!
Thanks for the response. I totally agree that scientific evidence is really not enough to make conclusions. Science too rapidly evolves to fully rely on it! I come from philosophical arguments against the infinity of time or causes. These can be found in Dr. Craig's work. Since they overwhelm the evidence for infinite time and events, I conclude that there is an absolutely first event, and the cause that caused it is thus the first cause. I really had to be more specific, thanks!
That first cause can be conceptually analyzed to see how it 'looks like', but I do not assert that it is the theistic God - isn't it the God-of-the-gaps fallacy? I used the term 'God' in that message just for convenience (my companion sean s. used it too).
So what can we say about the first cause if analyze it conceptually?
- Its changelessness. Since a change is an event, the cause of the first event must therefore be changeless.
- Its immateriality. Anything material is constantly changing, at least on the molecular and atomic levels. So we’re dealing with an immaterial being here.
- Its timelessness. On a relational view of time, time does not exist in the utter absence of events. So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs (That's what you mentioned).
- Its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. Also, materiality is probably required for spatial existence.
- Its personhood. If nothing could cause the very first cause to act, it could only cause itself to, which is a property of a person with free will. Or, the argument, inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination, that only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause. Or, we're not aware of anything other than a mind or an abstract object that philosophers have considered to possess the properties of being uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. Since abstract objects are essentially causally effete, however, it follows that the cause of the universe must be a mind.
So, I arrive at an unembodied mind that possesses all mentioned above. But I certainly don't mean it's the very God that I believe in as a Christian. It's no more than what can be logically deduced, as above.
Thanks for a company!
Mike