TED Conversations

Sunny Qureshi

CEO, IQ Training & Consultancy

This conversation is closed.

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

POINTS TO PONDER

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?

Share:

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
    Mar 4 2012: Unfortunately the scientists/atheist are still stuck in the 18th century outdated belief system of finding "CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BRAIN" as per the thread question. Even great scientists like neil bore & max planx questioned these assumptions.
    For example in the human brain there is no connection between the electrical impulse & chemical reaction that creates consciousness when we are asked to visualize or think about an object" in Science its called a hard problem that one is unable to solve. Or even Plank epoch 10 to the power -40 what physicits are unable to solve
    whats beyond plank epoch ?
    One God is the infinite Consciousness that the mind cannot comprehend
    • Mar 4 2012: Sorry Franciz but you are talking pure nonsense. It is creationists who live quite outdated and pretend that kindergarden physics is a way for dismantling all of today's science. You are living proof. Citations to Max Plank and Niels Bohr (if these are the ones you meant) about consciousness? Besides both guys are dead, they were physicists, not neurobiologists. I don't know where you take your information from, but I have shown you that they twisted that quote you gave us about Hawking, and you keep using them as source. Don't you see anything wrong with that? Well then, since your sources are snake-oil salesmen, I can't even trust that both those guys denied the brain-consciousness idea, but that still does not matter, since they had neither the knowledge, nor the data.

      Then you say that there is no connection between our brains activity and consciousness. Really? Because I have read plenty or articles that map those activities quite well. So well that if scientists were scanning your brain, they would know if you are happy, angry, lying, and a sort more of emotional and intellectual activities going on. There are even substances in the brain that have been connected to such feelings as love, and similar substances can make volunteers stop feeling such things as love while the substances are in their bodies. And I am not even touching the surface of what is known today.

      Best, and hopefully you will learn something about your sources of information now. Believe as you wish, that's your right. But think more carefully about whether what you are saying is true given your sources. Philosophy alone won't work with well-informed people. Nor will quotations to scientists or personalities taken out of context for propagandistic effect. Nor will faulty logic, nor creationists' misunderstanding of what nature should be without a god.
      • thumb
        Mar 6 2012: Thankyou for a great insight Gabo, i'm really impressed by your knowledge into the subject. Can i add you to my list of favorite members?

        How should i end this topic for an upcoming lecture at sukkur university Pakistan. I went through the thread and found things to be inconclusive regarding the first cause theory?
        • thumb
          Mar 6 2012: Way cool Sunny! I did not know you were doing that. If you like I can send you reference. Let me know.
        • Mar 8 2012: Hey Sunny,

          It would be an honour if you add me to your list of favourite members.

          I think the point by Felix is quite good (If you don't see it, it starts with these words: "It is worth noting that the big bang theory"). Summarizes a lot, and warns against the gratuitous (I would add "fallacious") intent of using causality for inferring things about a process that's really outside of any ideas/experiences about causality. All of that without being as aggressive as I tend to be.

          :-)

          Best!
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2012: Dear Franciz, please confirm your sources here.
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2012: I note when you damage the brain you damage our mental faculties, mind, self etc.
      Same with diseases of the mind such as alzheimers etc.
      Someone with severe dementia or brain damage does not have the same level of consciousness as a healthy person.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.