First Cause vs Last Effect

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by post-it, Mar 9, 2002.

  1. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I have read and debated quite a few arguments on First Cause. I was just reading the Bible and was inspired by a new thought on the subject. I invite your comments.

    It occurred to me that I have been overlooking the “LAST EFFECT”, the opposite of “First Cause.”

    My Argument.
    Premise (1)
    We see in nature that all things come to their own particular end. A death or lack of further growth in the essence of itself. For each CAUSE, an effect is created, but that effect does have an end to itself. It cannot continue forever as an effect that continues to grow.

    Premise (2)
    All effects had a cause and all effects come to an end under the nature of the universe.

    Premise (3)
    Since we can predict that the universe acting within its own rules must duplicate its own nature (made up of smaller causes and effects), the universe itself, should cease to exist at some future time. It is the nature of the universe to have effects that die. Even scientists have predicted that our universe as it is now, should die at some point in the future.

    Premise (3)
    The atheist stand point (most of the time) is that the Universe has always existed, but if that was the case, then by the nature of always existing there should be attributes where we could see that an effect within the universe continues to exist and grow in itself. However, just the opposite occurs, each effect comes to an end. Things always die. Effects always die. The nature of the universe is predicting its own end.

    Conclusion (1)
    Therefore, the universe is an effect and there will be a last effect (an end to our existing universe).

    Conclusion (2)
    If the universe has existed for an infinite time before now, it should continue to exist for an infinite time, however my premises show that it should end. This conflicts with those who claim the universe has always existed and therefore no need for a God to exist.
    Conclusion (3)
    The effect of the universe must have been caused by something not of its own nature (nature of the universe; that being an effect that must end). God (or the cause of the universe) is not held to the nature of this universe and would have to be an infinite existing being, otherwise it would be of the same nature of the universe.
    Summary
    If God created the universe, it would be an effect and it should come to its own end.

    If the Universe has always existed, then it should be giving us evidence that there is no LAST EFFECT. There is none.

    Therefore, God exists.

    [ March 09, 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  2. selbyn

    selbyn
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    We see in nature that all things come to their own particular end. A death or lack of further growth in the essence of itself. For each CAUSE, an effect is created, but that effect does have an end to itself. It cannot continue forever as an effect that continues to grow.

    The problem with that is that each effect is a cause. Lets go with your metaphor of things in nature dying. When a plant dies it does simply cease to exist. It decomposes and breaks down into nutrients. These Nutrients feed other plants. The plants grow, die, and turn into nutrients. This cycle continues.

    I personally am better at History then science and nature so I think what I’m trying to say can be better illustrated there. Lets take the development of modern Democracy in a extremely simplified form (many inbetween events are left out):
    Magna Carta leads to &gt; Parliament leads to &gt; The English Civil War leads to &gt; Locke leads to &gt; The founding fathers leads to &gt; USA leads to &gt; other events

    under your theory the of cause and effect history would look like this:
    Magna Carta leads to &gt; Parliament which die’s :eek:

    As you can see from the observable world an effect is not an end but a beginning.
     
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Couple of important facts to consider:

    The universe is demonstrably not infinitely old. By "universe", I mean that observable part of reality in which we live.

    It does not follow that the universe might not have been caused by something natural but outside of our understanding. That something might be infinite.

    My faith is that God created the physical universe, and anything beyond it that might have caused the physical universe.

    But the above argument cannot logically support my faith.
     
  4. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assumed we both would already agree that each effect does become a cause for another effect. What my argument states is that the current effect must die or cease in the growth/development of itself and the purpose of itself. Likewise the Universe is an effect that must die, therefore, is not infinite as most skeptics think.

    For example. As a person, you are made up of causes that had come to their previous ends. Food etc. Some day you will die and cease in being a HUMAN. This is also the nature I am equating to the universe. It has a (beginning) existence and then an end cycle to it. The particles left from a dead person is not use to make a better version of your body and the useful purpose you gave to existence. You as a complete effect must die.

    So if we take the Universe as a whole and look at it as if it where (for example) a Human person, it will also die. Yes, there would be some particles left in space, but not for use in any type of universe as we know it today.

    My argument then concluded that if the Universe will die, it would not be logical to think that it has always existed as many skeptics and atheists think. Something that has existed an infinite time before shouldn't die.

    Therefore, we can now assume from Cause and Effect, that Something was the cause of the universe (all its partials and its nature), this cause must be outside the Universe itself with its beginning/ending sequenced nature.

    That Cause is God.

    [ March 09, 2002, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  5. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. That was what my argument seeks to prove. The universe in the argument is all particles that are in existence that currently creates our observable and non-observable star, planet, etc. systems.

    I agree, my argument supports that thought.

    I agree, my argument supports that thought.
    I'm sorry that you missed every point of my argument and for some reason thinks if proves something other than what you believe. It actually helps support the Christian/Theist view.

    My argument is for atheists and skeptics who speculate that there is no God, therefore, they don't need to look into being a Christian or any other belief.

    [ March 09, 2002, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  6. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    Post-it – Your argument is close to that of the argument derived from
    the general law of entropy, which states that all things are becoming
    less organized and that randomness is increasing. This loss of
    complexity and organization is well-documented not only by science but
    by us in our everyday lives. Things run down, wear out, rust…

    And they had to be there initially in an organized and complex condition
    to run down, wear out, and rust.

    There is no reason this should not apply to the universe itself. The
    countering argument has to do, on a universal scale, with one of the
    following three ideas

    1. There are multitudes of parallel universes which are simply
    fluctuations of themselves, and this universe supports the life and laws we
    are familiar with. So while this one may come and go, the existence of
    universes is eternal in and of themselves.
    Evidence? None.

    2. An oscillating universe: as the universe expands it becomes less and
    less organized but then it will finally contract under its own
    gravitational pull (or whatever else cause is postulated), and, either as it
    contracts, or with the initial re-expansion, becomes more and more organized again in a way which may or may not support life.
    Evidence? None.

    3. The super-string theory: Here, see if you can figure it out!

    http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/GraduateAdmissions/greene/greene.html

    Evidence? None.

    When one works with that strange stuff called data, and when one
    operates inside the experience we have as a human race with the universe
    we can see and not simply imagine, we do find exactly what you said:
    every cause necessitates an effect. What is interesting is that each
    effect must be smaller than the cause because there is always energy and
    organization lost in the process of producing the effect. Thus, an
    ending is a necessity.

    And yes, endings mean there were once beginnings. And the final ending
    of disorganization and randomness means there was, of logical and
    physical necessity, a beginning which entailed extreme organization and
    specified complexity.

    There is nothing in our experience or data which indicates that either
    of these things can spring into being in and of themselves. Thus a
    Creator is also a logical necessity.

    Which still does not stop a number of people from declaring that He
    doesn’t exist. I think they will be in for a nasty surprise later,
    however.
     
  7. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOE MEERT

    A couple of corrections and comments from an atheist.
    (1) I don't know of many people (including atheists) who think that the
    Universe has 'always been'.
    (2) When people argue this point, they tend to argue that 'cause' means
    purposeful. Maybe you didn't mean that, but your premise is that last
    effect/first cause is the result of God. Here's my problem with the
    argument. The 'cause' for the Universe could be nothing more than a quantum
    fluctuation that caused the unfolding of space-time. It need not have been
    'triggered' by an external forcing (=cause in most of these arguments and
    God in the case of those arguing for God.
    (3) In your argument, you say 'end', but none of us knows if this is
    correct. We may die, but our material is recycled. For example, there is a
    very good chance that a particle of air exhaled during the last breath of
    Julius Caeser was just inhaled by you. It may be that the 'death' of the
    Universe is the result of the Big Crunch and that following that another
    Universe may quantum fluctuate into existence. At this point our knowledge
    is limited in answering this question. It could be God or it could be no
    God.

    Basically, your entire argument falls apart (for the atheist) because (1) is
    not assumed by atheists and (2) atheists don't need an intelligent
    causation. It may sound convinving to the believer, but I found nothing
    compelling or all that new in your argument.

    Cheers

    Joe Meert
     
  8. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    FORD PREFECT

    The atheist stand point (most of the time) is that the Universe has always
    existed, but if that was the case, then by the
    nature of always existing there should be attributes where we could see that an
    effect within the universe continues to
    exist and grow in itself.


    Last I checked most atheists, at least the ones I know, have a cyclical view of
    the Universe. The universe begins as
    infinitely compressed matter, Pressure causes the mater to explode outward
    forming the Universe. The Universe expands
    to a certain point and then the forces of gravity collapse it again. Eventually
    it collapses into an area of infinitely
    compressed matter. So you are right in stating that Atheists believe that the
    Universe is infinite, but did not go into
    enough detail in how it was thought to be infinite. This of course left me with
    quite a dilemma for a while, because I do
    indeed feel the universe will end in that it will collapse but it’s collapse is
    not an full stop.

    The effect of the universe must have been caused by something not of its own
    nature (nature of the universe; that
    being an effect that must end).


    I cannot see how you conclude this. The cause of a human child is a human parent.
    A human is obviously of the same
    nature as a human. In the above situation the cause of one universe is the
    collapse of another, both universes would be of
    the same nature. Magna Carta and the U.S. constitution are similar in nature.

    God (or the cause of the universe) is not held to the nature of this universe
    and would have to be an infinite existing
    being, otherwise it would be of the same nature of the universe.


    If you wish to define God as the cause of the universe, I can make no argument
    against that. Whether the cause of the
    universe is the collapse of the last universe or gigantic infinite powerful
    elephant you may define that as god. If you
    define it as god as the thing that created the universe then god must have
    created the universe. However, I may be wrong,
    but I have a feeling you are referring biblical god which cannot be proved with
    such an argument.

    I assumed we both would already agree that each effect does become a cause
    for another effect. What my argument
    states is that the current effect must die or cease in the growth/development of
    itself and the purpose of itself.


    If each effect is a cause and each cause is an effect then what is the cause of
    God? Also if each effect must die then will
    not god die?

    This is also the nature I am equating to the universe. It has a (beginning)
    existence and then an end cycle to it. The
    particles left from a dead person is not use to make a better version of your
    body and the useful purpose you gave to
    existence. You as a complete effect must die.


    As an entire effect I must die. However the the particles which make up my body
    go on to create other things. In a similar
    manner the molecules of one Universe would create another.
     

Share This Page

Loading...