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?


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
    Mar 7 2012: It is worth noting that the big bang theory does not necessarily conflict with the idea of an eternal universe; consider, for example, the cyclic model of the universe proposed by Steinhardt and Turok (I haven't looked directly at their research, but they have an excellent pop science book called "Endless Universe").

    You may already be aware of this, but what you're asking is very similar to asking "Does the Kalām cosmological argument stand up to scrutiny?"
    As such, my recommendation to you would be to search the internet for people arguing for and against this argument.
    A good place to start is, as always, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
    (see also the video at the end of this post)

    I'm a university Physics student planning on getting my Master's in theoretical physics, but I'd be lying if I said I understood much about the science of the early universe. As such, I won't try to account for modern theories of the beginning of the universe. I would however like to make one more reflection:

    A common feature of these discussions is "the law of cause and effect"; causality. I'd like to point out that this law is based on observations made within the universe; between different events in spacetime.
    If there was no time before the big bang, we cannot assume that the law of cause and effect holds sway here.
    We can ask if it's still valid; we can posit it as a hypothesis and see where it takes us. What we can't do, however, is to use it as proof for anything until we've shown that it's actually valid. If we do, we have to rely on an appeal to intuition...
    ...and while intuition is a great tool, and not to be underestimated, in science, it takes a back seat to evidence.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.