Do you agree with my little theory?

Question

Second answerer, when did i ever say there are TONS of uncaused events?

You basically restated my idea and said i should re-think. Did you even read?

Answer 1

I hate the theory about the big bang.Beginning and ending are processes taking place in time so there's no way for time to begin or end.

My salutations!

And what about case/accident/randomness?

For everything that happens there must be a reason to cause it so the happening can't be just out of nothing.Things aim balance so if it's happening it's to counter balance, a reaction to some previous action which disturbed the system.That's why there can't be randomness/chance because if it's that random it wouldn't be able to elect a single of all possible actions.

Someone asked "could things have been different?" but then why ask that if you already have the question "why are things such"?

In order for things to be (to exist) they should be some way and without any guiding/biasness/affinity their state would not be able to take a particular shape and thus world would become impossibility.

You start a very big issue,you might not realize it but you are braking people's concepts about the world.As you see it doesn't affect time concept only so that's why you get opposition even though you can't be wrong because every other hypothesis contains a contradiction.You must change people's minds and their definition of time will change as a free bonus but how are you going to do it I don't know.

Answer 2

i will not refute or support your position, i will offer another perspective.  have you considered the possibility that you are limiting your analysis to only three dimensions?

now, to actually address your points.

"if A, then B" suggests that the idea of B must be in A.

consider numbers.

"if 2, then 1" is logically true; if you have 2, you have 1.

i will not try to discourage you from pursuing this line of thought, but be forewarned, it is possibly the oldest question.

i must correct you, you are a scientist (as far as i can see).  a scientist is one who pursues truth with as few pre-conceived notions about the search as possible.  trying to determine the cause of everything is as noble as trying to figure out who killed kennedy (it's the only mystery that i think might have the widest american appeal).

four words: subject and verb agreement

Answer 3

Disagree.

Your assumptions:

1. That your perception/data gathering is 100% accurate.

Response: Our best data gathering is limited by our senses and our own technology.

2. That you are not missing information.

Response: See #1 above.

3. That your system of logic is not inherently limited by the workings of your own brain.

Response: The only thing that is not limited about the human being is our thirst for knowledge, and our quest for answers. Faith starts in the hypothesis.

The best "scientists" identify their own limitations.

Answer 4

the thing is,

the bigbang theory was said to have done due to the mixture of gases that cause an explosion, (correct me if i'm wrong)

You are saying that not everything has a cause, is it not?

You might hate me for this, but I stand in no position or side in terms of this, i want my mind to be open yet to a few more reasons.

i have to start with the most simple one, which you stated as "time" well, yes. that's true, time is just actually a representation of time. It's what people call the "time" or how long. So, great, you mentioned chain of events. i agree with that tiny statement. time does exist before bigbang, it's just that there are no people around to say that it was "time" but you really can't stop time. there is time spent for the explosion and mixture of gases.

My own reasoning for cause and effect, (try to follow me with this, it's kinda hard to explain)

So you're saying that not all have a cause, right? (please bare in mind i stand in no side, i am merely pointing out ur arguments)

you are determining a cause for something, You said there isn't in everything, this made me think that you don't believe that there is an initial causer. the one that caused it all. and you say that there is no Prime Cause for everything (the initial one that created the effect,) voids your reason to find the cause. (let me guess you didn't get that the first time, let me restate.)

Your goal is to find a cause for the effect. and yet you say that not everything is caused by another. So why did you ask the question (finding the cause for the effect) in the first place when you firmly believed that there is no Prime cause or a cause for everything?? thus, there must be a prime cause or prime mover of things, this is what the theists call "god."

Not all have a cause really, because there is one thing that doesn't have a cause, and that's the prime causer/mover of things. or what you call the "uncaused cause"("god" for theists) but other than that, the theory of cause and effect applies to everything.

currently, I believe in nothing i just stated, i just found this reasoning quite rational. I hope u got my point in my explanation.

oh, p.s., not a theist, not an atheist. just plain agnostic.:) <sorry for the vague explanation. im not good at explaining stuffs right now.>

--------------------------------------...

<oops, sorry, haha. must get going to the research to find out more about bigbang. haha:D thanks>

i find that u did not really understood completely my explanation in time, I was actually agreeing with you in terms of time, yes, there is time before big bang. and not because there are no people to point out that there is time, that it entails no time. I was just saying that since the word "time" first came when the people learned the name of it, it is then that the time before the bigbang is time that they think does not exist. but yes. i agree. there's time before bigbang.:D

Answer 5

Interesting topic but one difficult to prove!  I mostly agree with your point but disagree with part of it.

From my own experiences, through observations, 'self/soul' developments, authentic learnings, meditations etc, I have learnt a few things similar to what you are saying.  I was first brought up in mainly a Buddhist environment then Christian, my education is engineering which may contribute to this strange view.

I would say that putting it all together. Something just exist !  It just is.  The 'cause & effect' only operate in 'duality' world i.e. the 'manifested' world.  

Prior to that, the universe exist but without the conscious observer to 'know' that it exist!  Therefore we cannot possibly 'have any knowledge' what existed before that, if you get my drift, not to say that it did not exist prior to the existence of its 'observer'.

Consciousness began when the first 'thought' occurred.  That thought was 'I exist' the first awareness of the 'self' often called a soul.  The second thought was of the existence of its 'duality twin' (fashionable known as the soul-mate).  Event prior to the first thought/self awareness was an 'event' commonly known as 'the big bang'.  Well, whether it was a big bang or a little bang - it all depends on the angle of observation!

From the point of 'first awareness' onwards, 'things' were 'created' through energy/spark commonly known as love (it has similar quality to pure love) and was directed/shaped  into 'form' via thought. [So, both God created the world out of love & we create our reality are both correct].

So, it all depends on the angle of observations - akin to a scientist/botanist etc discovering a specie that no one thought existed before.  Prior to that 'discovery', it does not exist as far as the 'observer' is concerned, even though it existed! Not a paradox, just the question of the awareness of its existence.

Therefore prior to 'the big bang' or its equivalent we did not have the awareness if something existed or not.  In order for something to exist it must have boundary to define itself (duality = cause & effect)and an observer to witness its existence!  Time is also a form of boundary definition.  It is a referencing system only.

I may have raised another topic here!?

My conclusion is this : Nothing exists so Something can exists! You can present / prove this to give any results.  All you need to do is set the 'constant' and the point of reference (angle of observation) in a position which will argue your case!  Where the awareness cannot reached 'beyond', you could say that nothing existed or something existed prior to that without a cause.

?????

Answer 6

You need to re think what you have written. Reason;  An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or an occurrence.

There is a first source and center to science, The un caused cause or there is no reason and we are an illusion. Cosmic consciousness implies the recognition of a First Cause, the one and only un caused reality.

Philosophicaly thinking; The concept of the I AM is a philosophic concession which is made to our time-bound, space-fettered, finite minds, to the impossibility of our creature comprehension of eternity existences--nonbeginning, nonending realities and relationships. To the time-space minds, all things must have a beginning save only the ONE UNCAUSED--the primeval cause of causes

Answer 7

Agree.

I always believe the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning.

Just like a circle.