TED Conversations

Sunny Qureshi

CEO, IQ Training & Consultancy

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can we prove Aristotle’s “Prime Mover”:Everything that happens is caused by something else?Then what caused the first cause?


The cause of the universe might be eternal, thus eliminating the need for a cause. As people have accepted the Big Bang Theory, so this objection has fallen out of favor.

It is worth pointing out that time is an aspect of the universe,without the universe, there is no time. It has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe.

1.Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause?
2. Universe began to exist therefore it has a cause "the first cause" or was the matter already present that caused it?
4. If it was the first cause then what caused the first cause?


Closing Statement from Sunny Qureshi

The Debate was a mixture of philosophical and scientific arguments presented by members.

The question still remains unanswered as both schools of thought were inconclusive on the God or no God debate.

The problem is of the fact that both atheists and theists are both opposed to each others "belief". Even in science, hypothesisation which is a kind of belief that has not been proved exists.

This debate and other debates will remain inconclusive unless and until a Collaborative stance is not adopted by the two.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 26 2012: The acceptance of the big bang is something i can't understand as it should of been dropped when it was observed that the stars of our galaxy regardless of where they are all orbit the center at roughly the same speed,we make a theory,we run it until an observation contradicts that theory then we drop it and start again but we didn't do that instead we added to it.That was in the early sixties, come forward to 1965 when wilson and penzias discover the CMBR and suddenly it's direct proof of the bang.Their experiment was focused on something else,they were not looking for the CMBR they only noticed a 3* variance thus they stumbled upon it.The Cosmic microwave background radiation is not energy left over from the bang it's what happens to radiation when it has wiped out its sources.Radiation from our sun will eventually turn into the CMBR.

    Any cosmology can use it,it's there so you put it in,predictions of it's degree variance go back to 1896 when Guilluame predicted it to be 6.1* and he was for a non-expanding universe.We still haven't found dark matter,they use words like "Candidate" to slide in a possible for it's existence,30 years on and still nothing.

    We should have several cosmologies all at the same time not just one,if you're a bang proponent then fine,if you're a steady state proponent then double fine,if your Religious then ok.

    Like hoyle said it takes only one observation,just one to change it all.

    Here's one,we have no evidence to the contrary that states the universe will not dissipate

    This pix is an artists rendition of the universe

    • thumb
      Feb 26 2012: ",we make a theory,we run it until an observation contradicts that theory then we drop it and start again but we didn't do that instead we added to it."

      Actually what happens in theoretical science is that a theory is created based on observations. That theory if it can be collaborated by other scientist, holds true until disproven. Because it is a theory and explains phenomena and can be explained to later generations. Some theories come in to and out of favor based on new information. But that is why sometimes science is advanced by a new generation working on an old observation.

      So you are correct. Sometimes there are many theories to explain various phenomena. That is why it makes no sense to assign belief to any of them. Of course, some can leave the theoretical plane and move into scientific truth through hypothesis testing. That is why so many people are trying to prove theories. Its what scientists do.

      Now observation is based on perception and we all know that can be faulty. That is why it needs to be corroborated. And the math, or logic can be substantiated. But this sometimes degrades into the whole reality debate going on in another thread.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2012: Thanks for the correction, i should of seen that

        Yes you're right,we need more young blood without the fear of the old boy network to challenge it,i for one fear a theorum middle ages that could set us back decades,preposterous as that sounds the feeling is always at the back of my mind.

        I wonder has anyone asked a blind person their thoughts on reality?
        • thumb
          Feb 27 2012: You're so right about the old boy network too. One of the toughest things is to get that collaboration from fellow scientists. They can be a little cliquish.
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2012: Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

        Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

        Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?

        The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

        Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?

        People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2012: The first cause theory question question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!!!!
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2012: Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2012: Yeah, only Lewontin continued with some reasoning why gods should not make it in the door:

        "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

        Also note that he says "no matter how counterintuitive and mystifying to the **uninitiated**" He is saying that an ignorant opinion on this does not matter. I add that if you are to argue against a scientific explanation you have to do so such well informed, not by misquoting, not by taking phrases and words out of context to make the wrong point. Not by misquoting in the hopes that everybody will believe that whatever some well-known biologist might have said is what every biologist/scientist is thinking.

        You already gave us a twisted quote before (just look around here). Did you learn anything from our discovery of what the real quote was about? Apparently not. You continued using the very same creationist propaganda sources.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.