I'll go in reverse order this time.
"I would prefer "first cause" or "ultimate reality" since that better encompasses the nature of the thing being discussed."
You don't know the nature of what's being discussed, so how can you claim to describe its nature? We cannot look past 10^-43 seconds after the initial expansion. So how do you know anything about the nature of the "cause."
" Acausality means that an event did not have any cause whatsoever and that the event happened independent of the causes and prevention placed by the environment."
And the Universe's expansion can happen independent of the environment, because it is the predicate for environment's existence.
Let me put it this way: cause and effect is a temporal concept; because, the cause must precede the effect. But time didn't exist before the initial expansion. So it isn't justified to apply that same concept to 1) a Universe with no time, and 2) a Universe that would be governed by quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out.
"Time is the dimension of space that makes it possible for multiple causal events to be understood in the context of each other and to get a standard of measurement for the order in which changes happen."
The only reason time is known to be linear is because the second law of thermodynamics does not look the same going backwards as it does forward. Entropy always increases in the Universe as a whole. Time and space didn't exist pre-expansion, so this is just not applicable.
"It is NOT a fact that some events are acausal. Prove it to me, show me research that concluded that parts of the universe does not make sense and is acausal."
"I am sorry, Sum, but I fail to see how the new and controversial field of quantum mechanics should be used to declare that some parts of the universe are acausal. Simply because we don't fully understand the mechanisms yet, it doesn't mean that quantum science is acausal. After all, why can we create such beautiful and accurate mathematical wave-functions if quantum particles behave in an acausal way?"
"Where doesn't causality apply? Where can you prove that an event had no cause?"
"Well, I read a bit on the Wikipedia site you provided and found that there are actually causes that can explain quantum phenomena. One example: "Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the materials, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects." Also, the cause is simply hidden from us, as the quantum fields are impossibly small and hard to study. Can you provide evidence that quantum mechanics is acausal? If you cannot, then we should take the default position that quantum physics are causal, like literally any other field of science. Furthermore, the particles popping in and out of existence always happens in a pair of negative and positive particles, which proves that it is not completely random or acausal, it is controlled by a hidden quantum mechanism or maybe the first law of thermodynamics."
I'm not claiming that Quantum Mechanics is acausal, only that quantum fluctuations are acausal. As I already explained, QFT is a way of modeling particles as localized vibrations in a quantum field. The random energy fluctuations in a quantum field come about with no energy input, thus, they are acausal. Quantum fields vibrate gently, randomly; and, sometimes this produces enough energy to create a particle, which we call a "
virtual particle." The casimir effect is a demonstration of the effects of these virtual particles, because the vacuum energy, the quantum fluctuations, by creating an "energy gradient," forcing the plates together. The reason is, as I'm aware, that the vacuum energy outside the plates was greater than the vacuum energy between the plates, forcing them together.
"Sorry, I meant that these are the options:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe has a beginning but no cause"
or,
3) The Universe is cyclic, being both eternal and caused.
"Again, the only reason why no "god" is necessary is that the universe has the traits that god typically has."
Actually, several reasons are the fact that forcing god into the model makes it less parsimonious, and makes no testable predictions. It plugs in one unknown for another, and begs the question about the existence of the supernatural. Further, gods have been traditionally used to explain things we don't understand. Let's apply your logic:
"Again, the only reason that "zeus" isn't necessary to explain lightning is because lightning has the traits that "zeus" typically has."
It works the same way and is equally wrong. Injecting Zeus into our explanation of lightning explains nothing and commits all the fallacies I just mentioned. That's why we just use our models of what causes lightning without shoehorning in superfluous, extraneous elements that limit the scope of its explanatory power.
"So please stop critiquing me for "hiding" fallacies and secretly arguing for God in this."
I don't think you're hiding fallacies, I think you're making them perfectly obvious. If you aren't arguing for god, then why do you consistently make the analogy to a theistic god in an attempt to discuss the "first cause." You've been using "first cause," "ultimate reality," and "god" interchangeably.
""Before" is used to display causality. If A caused B then A came before B, even if time doesn't exist before C is created by B."
Like I said, "before" is a time word, assuming a linear timeline like the one we observe. Time words don't apply when there is no time. This is mute.
It doesn't claim what started the expansion, that is unknown.
"I don't try to answer that question. I simply claim that there is an answer, although humans might never access it."
Well I'm glad you admit that, but you're using faulty reasoning to arrive at the answer. By all accounts, the syllogism fails.
_____
Hope that helps and that there arent too many spelling errors.
