First Cause vs Last Effect

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 > Parliament leads to > The English Civil War leads to > Locke leads to > The founding fathers leads to > USA leads to > other events

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.