CHAPTER 2: Is the First Cause Personal?
Doesn't everyone believe in "God"? Surely everyone believes in a
First Cause that Itself had no cause. Logically,
something had to be there first, from which everything else was derived. The
question becomes this, "Is the First Cause personal?".
Some might suggest that the universe started with a bunch of "fields"
before matter was formed. Perhaps that can explain it all, but still those
fields or whatever must have been around forever. Some might just say that the
universe - everything that there is around us (all the building materials) -
had no beginning. It would have been like an eternal bowl of soup. Every
process within it has a finite lifespan, but the soup is still soup, regardless
of how it is stirred. So, let's agree that the First Cause/God must be
"eternal".
What are some other characteristics that we must associate with this First Cause we call “God”? Well one that may not be so obvious is that It cannot have an outside. Why is this? Well, if It had an outside then that outside would have to be infinitely vast in form or there would be something else outside of It. Wouldn't that be illogical, since by definition you can never get to infinity. One might also add that an infinitely vast outside to God would leave God infinitely small. I propose that everything, which has been created by this First Cause, must exist within It. Also, if there were an outside, then it would be separate from the First Cause. That would mean there was something, eg empty space, that did not come from the First Cause. Even empty space is something. Just like "zero" is a placed holder, empty space separates occupied space. Yes, space itself must have been part of the First Cause. The Big Bang theory reaches this same logical point. Without explaining how it got there in the first place, it contends that “Time” and “Space” were both created together in the beginning, when some incredibly dense point source exploded. These are logical premises, but can any of them be logically explained?
Let me clarify why it would be, "illogical to require that something actually be infinite because by definition you can never actually get to infinity". You can have an infinite progression, but that just means that it never ends. You cannot actually get to the end of this progression, because it doesn't end. Therefore, you cannot require that you are at infinity in order to prove something. Similarly, it is illogical to require the First Cause to be infinite in form, even though there is no limit to how big It can be. It is logical, however, to require the First Cause to have more dimensions, even though we can only fully measure three of them. Can you see the difference?
The characters in a movie screen could logically theorize about a third dimension even though they cannot fully experience it. In fact, we know there are three dimensions, because we are living in them. Their logic would be verifiable by us, but only a logical theory to them.
Well, if the universe is God, and It is both finite
and eternal, then everything is indeed being created inside God, so the concept
works in one scenario. Everything inside this universe is finite and everything
has an outside. Therefore, if the universe itself is the First Cause, then It must have at least two completely unique characteristics,
which we might call "extra dimensions". We would require that this
First Cause must have more than our three physical dimensions in order to be
eternal and again to have no outside. So the First Cause, whatever It is must have at least five dimensions.
Here's another problem. How can an inanimate universe produce animate,
thinking beings? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that random events will
lead inanimate objects to eventually turn into intelligent beings? So far there
is no observable evidence of this – only theories. The simplest form
of life has RNA, which is still incredibly complex. In comparison to the most
complex form of non-life, this gap is astronomical and too large to bridge by
accident or time. That step from non-life to life is huge, but then you still
need to take another immense
step from life to get to life that can think. All the theories to date on
how these steps may have been taken fall into the realm of science fiction, not
the realm of science. Even so, some scientists continue to look for an
explanation that would reduce these steps to where they might be taken over a
long, long time.
All this gobbledygook is just to show that we need to find some way to explain
the unknown in terms of the known. We can see that there are intelligent beings
in this universe, at least here on our own planet. Even if the universe as a
whole is eternal, we believe that every inanimate object in this universe had a
beginning. We see no way to create or to destroy energy. It only changes form eg morphing between
energy and matter. Perhaps “energy” is
the First Cause. All the building blocks
of energy and matter would be eternal even though we know they are continually
changing form. Yet, given that, how did life first arrive on any planet? Is
there some way we can explain the relationship of living things (and especially
thinking beings) to the First Cause? Is it easier or more logical to explain
this connection if the First Cause is personal, than it is if It is inanimate?
Suppose that this First Cause can think. In this scenario, the First Cause,
God, would be what I call, "personal". If God can think, at least as
well as we can, I say it is easy to explain His connection to all thinking
beings. He thinks and we exist, but we exist in His mind, not outside of His
form. And, if He stops thinking of us we would cease to exist. This scenario
fits one of our initial criteria, that the First Cause has no outside. Also, it is something we can explain in terms
of what we can observe. We know we can think, even though we don't understand
the physics of how it works. Nevertheless, if we know what we can do by
thinking, then we know some of the things that God can do by thinking as well.
So, it appears that we have at least one way to explain the origin of life in our universe, if we accept that there is a Personal God. Conversely, if we do not accept that, then we are still at a loss to explain the origin of life; and all our theories on the subject start off with a big Question Mark. So, until otherwise proven wrong, let's go forward under the logical assumption that there is indeed a personal God, Who can think at least as well as we, His created beings, can. You might take a look at this independent article on this subject entitled, “Does God Think”.
We'll explore what this means in a logical manner and see how well it answers some of those other "tough questions" posed earlier.
28 October 2001
PS:
2a.
Does this preclude the existence of other Gods who are also eternal yet
distinct and physically separated from our God?
Given what was
presented above, my logic tells me that everything we can perceive is in the
mind of our God.
Two comments in
answer to this question of multiple Gods:
1) If such Gods
existed, we could never know it and we could never be affected by them. They would be irrelevant to us.
2) If such Gods
existed then our God would need to have an "outside" where they
existed. This then violates the logic
that the First Cause must have no outside.
If there were an
outside to our God large enough to accommodate another God, then where would it
end? If it went on forever, then these
Gods would be infinitely small. This is
an illogical solution in my mind at least.
Perhaps these Gods
are both eternal but linked somehow so that together they have no outside? If so, then they are one God again, but with
two independent "minds". This
would work, but again it would be irrelevant to us.
30 January 2002
For more on this and a response to any questions, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com