Existence began with no pre-existing cause

[ronjanec]

I was reading K.R's comments last night that he is starting to agree with Lomax's comments that it may have been possible for existence to have began without a cause;

Well, if there was of course no existence of any kind existing before the beginning of all existence, and any possible pre-existing cause of any kind could not in any way have of course existed itsef before the beginning of all existence, then we must conclude that existence must have began without a possible pre-existing cause of any kind right?(if we assume that it is in fact true that existence did have a beginning in the first place).

I have personally thought about this for many years, and this can almost drive you crazy if you think about it for any great length of time: This must be true, and at the same time this can't be true, if you think about what this actually means and implies;

For someone(and I include myself here) to believe that existence could have possibly began without a possible pre-existing cause of any kind has to of course sound like a completely ridiculous and illogical conclusion if there ever was one. No cause, no effect, end of story: There just had to be a pre-existing cause, or how and why could anything ever begin in the first place right? There just had to be some kind of catalyst that started everything right?

Yet, and on the other hand, and as I just tried to show you, someone thinking and believing that there again could be a pre-existing cause for the beginning of existence is definitely even more ridiculous and illogical than the other option(duh)

So I had to choose between two completely ridiculous and illogical conclusions, and I of course chose the one that was not as completely ridiculous and illogical as the other one. Or the one that Lomax again said may be correct.

After "crying myself to sleep" a number of times thinking about the ramifications of the same nightmare paradox("logic for the first time in my life has appeared to completely fail me boo hoo") I did at least come up with something really interesting in regards to this, but unfortunately it still did not solve the big mystery here;

While it again must be true that there cannot possibly be a pre-existing cause of any kind existing before the beginning of all existence, there at least must still be a reason or why the same existence began at least in retrospect, despite the fact that there can again be no possible pre-existing cause of any kind existing before for any of this(or again, after the fact)

No, I am not contradicting myself here people: You really have to think about this for awhile.

[moranity]

why does the universe have to have begun, why can't it just "cycle"?

[BadgerJelly]

I think the issue here being overlooked is TIME. The very concept of before and after seem a little presumptuous to me.

To say existence began is nonsense. What is IS and what is not IS.

Basically something and nothing are the same thing just as existence and non-existence are the same thing.


Explain to me what time is please.

hint : speed of light and matter/energy. Big Bang theory is not an actual "big bang" or in the physical sense what we refer to as a singularity. You may or may not find it interesting to think of the premise of a singularity that is existence in/of(?) an absolute plenum.

[ronjanec]

why does the universe have to have begun, why can't it just "cycle"?

That may also be a possibility moranity, but I thought I had effectively covered that at the end of the second paragraph? So if the universe or existence did in fact have a beginning...........

[Watson]

Egg-chichen arguements are always cyclical. Things are just the way there are.

As for the singularity being in an absolute plenum, the singularity,to me, suggests an increasing density toward a center, even inside the event horizon. Matter in a plenum would be more homogenious, I expect.
Not sure what you mean "absolute plenum"

[ronjanec]

I think the issue here being overlooked is TIME. The very concept of before and after seem a little presumptuous to me.

To say existence began is nonsense. What is IS and what is not IS.

Basically something and nothing are the same thing just as existence and non-existence are the same thing.


Explain to me what time is please.

hint : speed of light and matter/energy. Big Bang theory is not an actual "big bang" or in the physical sense what we refer to as a singularity. You may or may not find it interesting to think of the premise of a singularity that is existence in/of(?) an absolute plenum.

"I think the issue here being overlooked" or at least so far is the actual topic.

[Watson]

OK back to the OP, is "with no pe-existing cause" the same as "no pre-existing conditions"? I could answer yes and no on that. The cause could be the spark the ignited existence, under the right conditions, in which case they are different. Or, some pre-existing conditions slowly involved to bring about existence, without any particular cause, in which case conditions where the cause and they are the same thing.

[sponge]

As BadgerJelly implied, time could be significant and I can see that it could be argued that TIME is just a concept of the human mind to measure the journey through life, observe change as movement, etc.

I can also see that, if we regard TIME as a mere concept rather than an actual reality, existence can be considered a static state and no longer requires a beginning or an end. In fact, without time 'before beginning' and 'after the end' would have no meaning.

What I can’t get my head around is WHY ‘is’ existence at all.

I guess I’m looking for a reason for existence and I’m going to be told (not for the first time) that there doesn’t have to be a reason and that it is nonsense to ask for a reason for that which simply IS.

So why has this question always tormented humanity (and me) when it has no obvious advantage as a survival skill and little chance of ever being answered except by guesswork?

I hope this isn’t off topic, ronjanec. You did kinda mention the same difficulty yourself towards the end of your OP. Great opening post, by the way, clear and comprehensive in the way you set out the problems.

[charon]

ronjanec

Existence began with no pre-existing cause

That's a contradiction in terms. Something can't 'begin' if it has no cause.

[ronjanec]

BadgerJelly,

I hope you will accept my apology:. In looking again at my earlier response to you, my words came off as much harsher than I actually intended them to;

I am not feeling well today(I believe because of my overexposure to the heat yesterday), and I was also feeling really frustrated that a number of conversations that I have been recently involved in have really "gone off the rails" so to speak, and I was concerned that this was also happening here again with your comments regarding time. I would have normally caught this(and a few typos in my original post) before I posted this, but unfortunately I did not.

[BadgerJelly]

No problem. I understand your frustrations believe me!

I think I see what you are getting at but I have to come at this the way I see fit and if you do not like the approach or agree with where it goes that is fine by me. Like I said I have gained from this post already.

I can already see problems with some of the initial responses you have here but they may also be wanting on a response to further this investigation ... then again they may just be throwing out a random comment with nothing of substance to back it up.

I have PLENTY of substance but lack in my ability to interpret my thoughts into words. Either that or people lack the patience or thoughts to interpret my words correctly :P

[ronjanec]

OK back to the OP, is "with no pe-existing cause" the same as "no pre-existing conditions"? I could answer yes and no on that. The cause could be the spark the ignited existence, under the right conditions, in which case they are different. Or, some pre-existing conditions slowly involved to bring about existence, without any particular cause, in which case conditions where the cause and they are the same thing.

Watson,

The definition of condition according to Merriam-Webster: Something essential to the appearence or occurrence of something else;

We are again talking here about the actual beginning of all existence here: So any condition could not exist in any way before this(or be a spark to anything else ) because something would then have had to have existed before the beginning of existence to have any kind of pre-existing condition.

[ronjanec]

As BadgerJelly implied, time could be significant and I can see that it could be argued that TIME is just a concept of the human mind to measure the journey through life, observe change as movement, etc.

I can also see that, if we regard TIME as a mere concept rather than an actual reality, existence can be considered a static state and no longer requires a beginning or an end. In fact, without time 'before beginning' and 'after the end' would have no meaning.

What I can’t get my head around is WHY ‘is’ existence at all.

I guess I’m looking for a reason for existence and I’m going to be told (not for the first time) that there doesn’t have to be a reason and that it is nonsense to ask for a reason for that which simply IS.

So why has this question always tormented humanity (and me) when it has no obvious advantage as a survival skill and little chance of ever being answered except by guesswork?

I hope this isn’t off topic, ronjanec. You did kinda mention the same difficulty yourself towards the end of your OP. Great opening post, by the way, clear and comprehensive in the way you set out the problems.

Well, the next time someone tells you "that there doesn't have to be a reason" you can tell them they are wrong about this and here's why....(try and spend a little time thinking about what I said about this in the op, and you will be ready for them the next time this happens)

Yes, but who can blame us for at least trying to answer it out of natural curiosity right? I personally tried very hard, and I completely failed: end of story(One of the main reasons Martin Heidegger is so famous worldwide was his famous attempt to try to answer the exact same question: or "Why existence rather than nothing?")

Thank you for the kind words by the way.

[ronjanec]

ronjanec

Existence began with no pre-existing cause

That's a contradiction in terms. Something can't 'begin' if it has no cause.

Hi charon, what is your point?

[charon]

ronjanec

what is your point?

Your statement was that existence began with no pre-existing cause. One has to assume that's just some sort of idea you have because I don't see how you could know how existence began. Not even science knows that.

However, you made that statement and I pointed out that the words are a contradiction in terms. Something that has no pre-existing cause cannot have 'begun'.

Right? Do you not see the truth of that? Something that has a beginning has a cause. It also therefore has an end. But something which has no cause has neither a beginning nor an end.

That's all, the point is in what I said. But you ask me what my point was. Is that because you don't know what else to say?

You're a theist, aren't you? I believe I've seen you say that before. The trouble with using the word God in the sense of a cause is what it implies. If it's a cause then it must itself have a cause - and so on back and back forever - therefore it can't be God!

However, if one asks from whence all we know has come, and that origin is neither a cause nor an effect, then we head in quite a different direction. Then that origin must be something eternal, timeless.

It's very odd that believers in religion want to believe in a cause for everything. That gives a wonderful sense of security. They can invent the cause and worship it. But if there's no cause then there's nothing to worship, nothing to fear, nothing to believe in - and they don't like that.

The fact, which is actually observable, is that life or existence has no end nor any beginning. There may have been the Big Bang but that wasn't the beginning. All the elements for such an event must already have been in existence since we're talking of a material manifestation. Something of some kind must have been there already.

So there is no beginning, no end, there's only timeless existence. That's the fact of it. That means - do look at it honestly - that all we know is this life. We can invent all sorts of fantasies but actually all we know is what we have now. In penetrating that reality the true nature of things is revealed.

Will that do?

[ronjanec]

Charon,

Yes, that is just some sort of idea I have, and I then tried to prove why it is true. No, I never actually said I knew how existence actually began, I just said existence must have begun without a pre-existing cause.

You criticise me for stating that something is true in the op title, despite the fact that you are also guilty of doing the exact same thing a number of times in your last post(?) I at least tried to actually prove my conclusion true.

Or for example: The op statement is a "contradiction" and obviously cannot be true? How could you know this for a fact charon? Could you please let the rest of us in on the secret?

You correctly point out that yes I am a thiest, and then go on to imply that all thiests need to believe in a cause for everything, obviously not seeing the contradiction in what you just said and implied. And by the way, I never once mentioned God in the op, so what does God have to do with anything in this particular discussion?

You of course have absolutely nothiing good to say about the op, and only want to criticise it like you often do the posts from many other people on the forum. You have not changed one bit since the last time I talked to you have you charon?

[owleye]

The first problem I have is with the statement of the topic. The sentence structure appears to be that 'existence' is some kind of object that we wish to attribute to it something about its origin. Life began with .... Language began by .... However, I don't think 'existence' works that way. (However, I'm willing to be wrong here and if encouraged I may be able to say something that makes sense should this be the case.)

The way I'm thinking of the concept of existence is that it may be considered a state of equilibrium or perhaps a process or activity of some object, said to exist by the nature of its being in that state or undergoing that activity. (I recognize here that the structure I used in that sentence (and also in remarks below) speaks of objects in such a way that while they could exist or not, they have some kind of existence even when not existing. I'll not get into this in this post, but would do so if encouraged to do so because I'm on the wrong track as mentioned earlier.) As such, with respect to the origin of objects assumed to exist, one is presumably asking the question about the first objects, assuming there was one (or more) and whether or not they must be some cause for their existence.

However, it seems to me, that every object that ever existed must have had some beginning and it's really not so difficult to imagine that a fully deterministic, instrumental cause is not required for it. Chance plays a role in every object's existence, it seems to me. It just so happens that the conditions under which objects come to exist happen to be met. The Higgs Boson presumably (see below for further elaboration here) came into existence (as an object) when the conditions for its existence (e.g., sufficiently concentrated energy applied) made it sufficiently probable. One may think of this sufficient energy as it's cause, but, from an instrumental view of causation, it is not the case that there is a straight cause-effect relationship. It's just that the conditions happen to be favorable to its detection.

Of course, there is a distinction that one can make between detection of an already existing object and the object itself. Though this applies to objects we are familiar with in daily life, each of which has its own origin somewhere back in time, even here there is a sense in which each such object had somewhat of a happenstance origin. There just happened to be the right conditions that brought it about. (Of course, human intentionality intends things to be in accordance with their wishes, but even these don't turn out as the result of perfect application of intentions. This may be overly strong as machining may create a product essentially as intended.)

In any case, something similar could be said about even the most fundamental particles. If we suppose that we created the circumstances favorable to a particular fundamental particle to be detected, because it is in the nature of such a particle that its existence in that form (particle form), we can say it came into existence because of its detection (humans not required for my use of detection). To say the particle existed before it was detected may not be appropriate, since as quantum theory teaches us about such particles that we can't apply the same form to that existence as we could after it was detected -- i.e., detection interferes with the warp and woof of undetected reality. There is some sort of weird probability state that bears little resemblance with actual states of existence. One should, in this way thinking, think of the Higgs Boson in its undetected form in a way that doesn't make it an existing object. Notwithstanding, I'll bow to the particle physicist on this interpretation.

If this makes any sense, then, I believe what it means is that prior to the so-called beginning there was some kind of potential existence, which is to say that when the conditions were favorable for the first object or first set of existing objects, they or it emerged as if by happenstance.

James

[ronjanec]

Owleye,

I actually used the word 'existence' in this particular case, to try to represent and include any kind of existence that was absolutely the first to actually begin anywhere(or possibly God, energy, light, the first particle, a singularity, aliens, or possibly even a different universe besides our own)

Did this make it a little clearer James?

[Keep_Relentless]

Hello hello everyone! Quite a great load to read and consider when I wake up. :)
First, I agree with moranity that we do not really need to justify an infinite time scale provided there is no necessary temporal link between times, because existence is always limited in that the past doesn't exist in the present, making reference to it logically self-defeating. This is personally what I believe right now.

James, I'm not sure "conditions" and "happenstance" really apply for a beginning of everything. There could not even be a time factor.

The apparent ridiculousness in the beginning of everything I attest to. The reason I acknowledged it as a possibility is that our conditions for "sufficient justification" can be reduced to knowledge of the existence of something. We can toss and turn as much as we like about it but that is an emotional reaction. In the case of existence especially, in totality, it seems we can't find a justification that we like, but what we like seems irrelevant, we aren't going to deny it and say that there is no existence. I can imagine existence beginning from nothing, no matter how detestable that thought may be.

[Watson]

OK back to the OP, is "with no pe-existing cause" the same as "no pre-existing conditions"? I could answer yes and no on that. The cause could be the spark the ignited existence, under the right conditions, in which case they are different. Or, some pre-existing conditions slowly involved to bring about existence, without any particular cause, in which case conditions where the cause and they are the same thing.

Watson,

The definition of condition according to Merriam-Webster: Something essential to the appearence or occurrence of something else;

We are again talking here about the actual beginning of all existence here: So any condition could not exist in any way before this(or be a spark to anything else ) because something would then have had to have existed before the beginning of existence to have any kind of pre-existing condition.

Well if you want to go to the extreme of NOTHINGNESS, then we are at the mercy of your imagination to provide some direction, because starting there, that is all we can discuss, wimcycle delight and fancifull imagination, and fairies on the head of a pin, singing "Rain drops on roses and fleas on dogs noses...."

[ronjanec]

Hello hello everyone! Quite a great load to read and consider when I wake up. :)
First, I agree with moranity that we do not really need to justify an infinite time scale provided there is no necessary temporal link between times, because existence is always limited in that the past doesn't exist in the present, making reference to it logically self-defeating. This is personally what I believe right now.

James, I'm not sure "conditions" and "happenstance" really apply for a beginning of everything. There could not even be a time factor.

The Nazican toss and turn as much as we like about it but that is an emotional reaction. In the case of existence especially, in totality, it seems we can't find a justification that we like, but what we like seems irrelevant, we aren't going to deny it and say that there is no existence. I can imagine existence beginning from nothing, no matter how detestable that thought may be.

"existence beginning from nothing"? Yeah, "detestable" is a good word fror this K.R: But unfortunately, I can see no other logical option for this no matter how hard I try.

I cannot remember if Martin Heidegger ever arrived at any kind of answer or conclusion about this in his lecture or book on the same subject: But even if he did, he was also(like you just mentioned) a very dedicated Nazi for most or all of his life, so he probably got this wrong too(By the way, how did you know this K.R?)

[ronjanec]

OK back to the OP, is "with no pe-existing cause" the same as "no pre-existing conditions"? I could answer yes and no on that. The cause could be the spark the ignited existence, under the right conditions, in which case they are different. Or, some pre-existing conditions slowly involved to bring about existence, without any particular cause, in which case conditions where the cause and they are the same thing.

Watson,

The definition of condition according to Merriam-Webster: Something essential to the appearence or occurrence of something else;

We are again talking here about the actual beginning of all existence here: So any condition could not exist in any way before this(or be a spark to anything else ) because something would then have had to have existed before the beginning of existence to have any kind of pre-existing condition.

Well if you want to go to the extreme of NOTHINGNESS, then we are at the mercy of your imagination to provide some direction, because starting there, that is all we can discuss, wimcycle delight and fancifull imagination, and fairies on the head of a pin, singing "Rain drops on roses and fleas on dogs noses...."

Well, that same premise, was also a very important part of the op Watson. And by the way, you really should use the words NO BEFORE versus NOTHINGNESS in this kind of discussion or situation: That is the actually the proper terminology here.

[charon]

ronjanec

I have no interest in the personal stuff. It only clouds the issue so I won't answer it.

The op statement is a "contradiction" and obviously cannot be true? How could you know this for a fact charon?

I've explained it. The OP is a contradiction in terms because it both supposes a cause yet denies a cause.

so what does God have to do with anything in this particular discussion?

The religionists say that God is the cause.

I've no objection to the idea of God per se as the unseen origin of all things. My objection is that it is designated a cause, that's all. Cause implies effect but life isn't an effect.

The universe operates by laws, one of which is cause/effect, but those laws aren't the effects of a cause. They have their origin in the epitome of law which is something timeless.

If you, like countless others, believe in God then you must surely believe God is something eternal, right? What is eternal can't be subject to cause/effect. It can't exist as a chain-event, it must stand alone as a thing-in-itself. Therefore it is neither a cause in itself nor can it be subject to cause/effect.

My point here is terribly simple. I'm not attacking you personally but the fact is that many theists consider God to be the cause of everything. If it's a cause then it can be appealed to. I'm saying this is confused thinking because something can't be both a cause and eternal at the same time.

You have not changed one bit since the last time I talked to you

It's my arguments that haven't changed, not me personally.

[newyear]

This subject is one of those, 'I just don't know', and even when knowing the whole picture this will probably lead to another question, like, 'why?'

The subject also demonstrates the innate drive the human being has in wanting to know where they came from and to understand its greater environment. Religion may actually free the mind of these thoughts, and act as a psychological tool.

[charon]

newyear

This subject is one of those, 'I just don't know', and even when knowing the whole picture this will probably lead to another question, like, 'why?'

The subject also demonstrates the innate drive the human being has in wanting to know where they came from and to understand its greater environment. Religion may actually free the mind of these thoughts, and act as a psychological tool.

No, that's apathy. It's true that we want to know our providence but there's no harm in asking.

What do you mean by religion? If you mean repeating creed and dogma then that certainly will only enslave the mind and never free it.

Just as science explores the material world the purpose of religion is to ask fundamental questions about life and find the true answers for ourselves.

[sponge]

FACTS:
Consciousness makes us aware

Awareness makes us think

Logic guides thinking

QUESTIONS:
Is consciousness inaccurate in that which it makes us aware of?

Is awareness inaccurate in the direction it leads our thoughts?

Is logic inaccurate in the conclusions it draws?

ANSWERS:
It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

QUESTION THAT REMAINS:
Are the majority correct?

[charon]

sponge

That was an interesting post!

FACTS:
Consciousness makes us aware

Awareness makes us think

Logic guides thinking

But will thinking alone answer these sorts of questions? Thinking is a limited process. Some things we have to discover although we may use thought to put them into words later. Thought can't actually see anything.

QUESTIONS:
Is consciousness inaccurate in that which it makes us aware of?

Is awareness inaccurate in the direction it leads our thoughts?

Is logic inaccurate in the conclusions it draws?

There's no reason to suppose either consciousness or awareness lead us astray unless there's something physiologically wrong but all conclusions drawn by thought are suspect. They may be partially correct but their very incompleteness makes them unstable.

ANSWERS:
It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

It can be but the majority have agreed an accepted norm.

QUESTION THAT REMAINS:
Are the majority correct?

They probably accept the right ones more or less according to their intelligence but it doesn't imply an understanding of the whole affair.

We always seem to rely on the mind, on thought, to answer our problems whether those problems are day to day issues or deeply philosophical. But all thought is knowledge-based and it can't travel beyond its own limits.

Thought can answer technical, knowledge-based problems like maths. There it's simple, we have all the ingredients necessary for the calculation and we only have to work it out. The answer comes from the premises and is on the same level.

Questions of life however are different. They require insight, a seeing into the problem, and that's not the result of calculation. They can't be worked out by the mind as in, for example, analysis.

By dissecting a problem we may come to a greater knowledge of it but that in itself isn't an answer. It doesn't free the mind of the problem. What frees the mind is the instantaneous perception of the whole thing, which is insight.

Seeing the whole thing is a perception of truth and it's that which frees, not clever calculation. After all, it's the mind which has made the problem and it can't through the same process undo it. There has to be a seeing into that whole process and that is insight.

When the mind sees the truth of its own process that very perception liberates. This is why self-knowing is so important. Without self-knowing knowledge by itself becomes a danger. We have immense knowledge but it hasn't solved our human problems. It hasn't produced love or brought peace to the world.

[Positor]

if we assume that it is in fact true that existence did have a beginning in the first place

Must we assume this?

So I had to choose between two completely ridiculous and illogical conclusions, and I of course chose the one that was not as completely ridiculous and illogical as the other one. Or the one that Lomax again said may be correct.

But there is a third possible conclusion, i.e. that existence did not have a beginning. This also may have its problems, but it needs at least to be considered.

While it again must be true that there cannot possibly be a pre-existing cause of any kind existing before the beginning of all existence, there at least must still be a reason or why the same existence began at least in retrospect, despite the fact that there can again be no possible pre-existing cause of any kind existing before for any of this(or again, after the fact)

Can you elaborate on the above, please?

Which, if any, of the following statements would you agree with?
1. There is no such thing as "before existence".
2. There has been existence for the whole of past time (i.e. for any past instant or duration t, there was existence at t).
3. There has always been existence.
4. Existence began.
Is (2) tantamount to (3)? Are (3) and (4) contradictory or not? (Does "always" mean "for all time", or specifically "for all infinite time"?)


I would also be grateful if K.R. could give a concise summary of his position.

[ronjanec]

ronjanec

Existence began with no pre-existing cause

That's a contradiction in terms. Something can't 'begin' if it has no cause.

charon, the word contradiction can be defined "as a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other"(Merriam-Webster) There are no parts in the same sentence or statement that contradict each other.

This is the op's title or opening statement: You originally criticised the same statement in your first post here: In your most recent post you defended yourself by saying "the op is a contradiction in terms because it both supposes a cause yet denies a cause" No, and wrong again charon, you were actually talking about the op's title or opening statement again when you tried to defend your earlier "logic", not the original post charon. Really slick on your part charon(busted)

My original post on this was not in any way a contradiction on my part charon, it actually just discusses an apparent paradox here;

Or once again the paradoxial observation that "existence cannot begin without a pre-existing cause, but on the other hand, existence must begin with a pre-existing cause!"

"Religionists say that God is the cause" If you actually understood what I was trying to say in my post charon, you would also realize that this has absolutely nothing to do with what I was trying to say here!

I am not going to waste any more of my time in trying to defend my post against your criticism charon, when you obviously have no idea what I was talking about in the first place.

[sponge]

Questions of life however are different. They require insight, a seeing into the problem, and that's not the result of calculation. They can't be worked out by the mind as in, for example, analysis. By dissecting a problem we may come to a greater knowledge of it but that in itself isn't an answer. It doesn't free the mind of the problem. What frees the mind is the instantaneous perception of the whole thing, which is insight.

Hi Charon,

It’s nice to be understood and get a sympathetic response :)

I often use intuition and ‘free thought’ when considering questions that resist logic and I have been rewarded with flashes of insight on rare occasions. It is a very emotionally satisfying method I find, and the best discoveries that I’ve found this way stay with me and become part of my basic thinking.

Of course, this is a scientific age and that means that these insights are, by and large, non-transferrable. Everyone, it seems, has to discover their own truth for themselves.