What may have been the initial cause?

If we can all agree that the Universe is finite, it seems reasonable to assume that at one point there was a beginning. I am not wishing to assert that we understand how the Universe was formed, Big Bang and God Creation are just two possibilities.
I am more interested in what may have been the initial cause to the domino affect or chain reaction that resulted in the universe as we know it.
Was the cause made via some form of conscious choice?
If so how does an ontological concept influence matter?
Maybe the matter that exists in our Universe popped out the other side of a black hole from another universe?
Maybe the law of infinite possibilities determined by probability?
Does the fact that the universe exist mean that it was always going to exist? Does that make it the probable outcome?
Why can't something that is absent of consciousness become it's own cause to exist?

I think that I can definitely agree that the Universe is a finite object, especially provided everything it appears to contain are essentially finite qualities. It itself is the existence of finite qualities.

I'm a bit of an idealist, and within the notion that the universe is a construction of mind I'm inclined to attribute the 'point of creation', that 'point' referenced in both the big bang theory and creation where, we might all be able to agree, nothing becomes what it is now, less within time and more towards the mind. I could even try to describe it as the eye on which consciousness is a contact lens.

Of course this has its problems, one that comes to mind is that there are certainly many many minds, though seemingly only one 'instantiation' or point of creation.

What I find to be interesting and perhaps an alternative perspective on the conventional notions of time are the implications of this approach. A form of Historicism, that the dimension of time as an instantiation of the mind, abstracts with distance from the mind, and so time is not a static linear sequence, but acts as more of a rope anchored on the mind perceiving it. All events within time are accurate in that they fall in canon with the present, but are constantly changing and flailing otherwise. I'd also say that this concept would apply to spacial dimensions, and perhaps even other things.

Just the take I'm currently fond of, by no means something I've prescribed to.

What if I do not agree with your concept? What if I believe the universe is finite but has no begining?

Well then I think it would be beneficial to us, and interesting to me, if you described it.

Well then I think it would be beneficial to us, and interesting to me, if you described it.

I have never trusted the BB it has no logic. If nothing can not exist then something can not start, it demands illogical reasoning. All we ever have is logic when the evidence is barren. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Another illogical consequence of the BB.

I am not sure but the torus universe has my interest. A constantly changing universe trapped in a circle of time, turning in on itself in constant struggle of life and death. We do not require a point in time to imagine an unimaginable creative surge.

I have never trusted the BB it has no logic. If nothing can not exist then something can not start, it demands illogical reasoning. All we ever have is logic when the evidence is barren. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Another illogical consequence of the BB.

Xris, I'm definitely with you in that the assumptions involved in the big bang are, tremendous. We've observed this expanding motion in the cosmos, the observation that every visible galaxy from the perspective on this planet is moving away from us, and so we presumptuously say "reverse the motion, we'll find our origin", as if someone seeing me walking down the sidewalk to the store could "retrace my trajectory" down the sidewalk and "find my home".

What I disagree with though is that it's purely illogical to say something can come of nothing, and that the expansion of the universe doesn't require a 'boundry' for it to be expanding into. My reason for this is because I feel that the logic we employ is always changing, throughout each generation of our species, and so the logic we currently employ, although revealing of truths, does still have its limitations. For example, the ancients had not yet developed any sense of self, and so their thoughts were confined, without that utility. What sense may we develop that may allow us to understand a world in which the finite and infinite coexist logically?

I am not sure but the torus universe has my interest. A constantly changing universe trapped in a circle of time, turning in on itself in constant struggle of life and death. We do not require a point in time to imagine an unimaginable creative surge.

I've got to look into this one, sounds fascinating. I'm particularly interested in how a finite universe could exist, without any acknowledgment or property of infiniteness within it. I've always kind of considered 'finite'ness as derived from 'infinite', not the other way around. In this model, is the universe we observe the universe in its entirety? I'll check this out, thanks.

We have to consider what nothing is. Its like having a piece of string x feet long with no ends. The universe if it starts must assume something preceded it. It has no logic to say it began but nothing preceded it. It's the same with how I, we imagined the universe to be expanding. We accept that space is created by events but is it logical? We start with a concept the BB, from what now appears suspect observations and gradually develop stranger and stranger logic. We have to be inventive and break all our well founded logical reasoning to make this BB a valid concept. Lets be adventurous and seek out new and wondrous explanations. Lets not get bogged down with accepted science.

What if I do not agree with your concept? What if I believe the universe is finite but has no begining?

By all means Xris if that is your belief, run with it. I often use to think the universe was infinite until I had a better understanding of the concept of time, but hey these things have no definitive explinations.

Whats your thoughts?

[Scott]

I was under the impression that the rules of physical causality with which we are all familiar break down as we rewind time back to some of the earliest events of which we are aware, e.g. prior even to the formation of protons.

On another point, I think the idea of a first or initial cause is self-defeating. Any reason to believe there is a 'first cause' seems to contradict the existence of a first cause all-together (e.g. 'every cause has a cause').

I was under the impression that the rules of physical causality with which we are all familiar break down as we rewind time back to some of the earliest events of which we are aware, e.g. prior even to the formation of protons.

On another point, I think the idea of a first or initial cause is self-defeating. Any reason to believe there is a 'first cause' seems to contradict the existence of a first cause all-together (e.g. 'every cause has a cause').

Hi Scott

The idea behind the thread was to figure out a way around "every cause has a cause" if there was originally nothing how did we get to something? Or perhaps that means there always had to be something by default? So what was the something that caused the something that we are currently aware of? What existed before awareness if that's possible at all?

What existed must exist, and therefore we are only aspects of it within reality. Other than what matters, must needs be that we do. In order to think we need know that which we thought, yet that which we thought we need know.
To be quite honest with you, in order to answer these questions, one automatically becomes a raven loony. If you try to be sensible about it, and tackle it from every ardent knowledgeable way, the knowledge fails and one is left looking only toward the imagination, which although plentiful, has not the answer. My guess is some kind of anti-imagination would take us there, to the unimaginable. That would end in nothing. That would lead me to believe in finding something in everything instead, rather than looking for everything in something. I guess.

There's been no initial cause that precedes universe in time. Universe has started to exist since an infinite time in the past and will continue to exist forever. But there's been a first cause which precedes the universe in existantial strength, which I refer to it as the Real. The Real has always existed just like the universe but unlike the universe it's sovereign and self-standing while the universe is its incarnation and depends on it. The Real has no form no shape no boundaries no limits, universe has no limits either but it contains existantial forms that have clear boundaries and shapes (stars, planets, animals, humans etc).

There's been no initial cause that precedes universe in time. Universe has started to exist since an infinite time in the past and will continue to exist forever. But there's been a first cause which precedes the universe in existantial strength, which I refer to it as the Real. The Real has always existed just like the universe but unlike the universe it's sovereign and self-standing while the universe is its incarnation and depends on it. The Real has no form no shape no boundaries no limits, universe has no limits either but it contains existantial forms that have clear boundaries and shapes (stars, planets, animals, humans etc).

Is this statement of fact or faith?

Dear Xris!

Is this statement of fact or faith?

What's the difference exactly? I think you're having prejudice, and I can understand where that comes from.
the notion above is a theory which is partly backed up by scientific observations and partly by reason. The Real is what religions refer to it as "God."

Dear Xris!

Is this statement of fact or faith?

What's the difference exactly? I think you're having prejudice, and I can understand where that comes from.
the notion above is a theory which is partly backed up by scientific observations and partly by reason. The Real is what religions refer to it as "God."

God is a concept an invention. It is you that has approached the subject with prejudice. Like we see all the time with faith motivated reasoning the truth is secondary to the real cause. Your not looking for the truth you are seeking evidence to promote god.