A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[HonestJoe]

All individual effects need a cause. p1 ...

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5

These are a set of logical premises, not statements of fact. You have created them to make a logical argument that, in and of itself, only applies as pure logic. To apply that logic in the real world, you would have to subsequently demonstrate that all of your premises are valid.

The fundamental issue here is that you have created a set of premises that are internally contradictory. You can't declare that "all effects need a cause" but also that "there can be infinite effects without a cause". You call this a paradox (which it isn't really) but you try to resolve it in the wrong way. What you should do is recognise that your set of premises is logically flawed and create a new set that is internally consistent. If you don't have a consistent set of premises, it is meaningless (and essentially impossible) to apply any logic to them.

You appear to be trying to create a set of contradictory premises, "proving" that they are indeed contradictory and then leaping to the conclusion of "therefore, what I believe must be true.". That is not how this works.

It's like saying "P1: All apples are red, P2: Granny Smith apples are green" is contradictory, therefore I have a blue apple.

 

[blü 2]

All individual effects need a cause.

That of course is simply a matter of definition. Individual phenomena need not be effects, as quantum physics has amply demonstrated eg by the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, and by the quantum phenomena that cause the Casimir effect.

A set of effects is an effect.

Not in the same sense. Each effect must by definition be caused.

Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.

I don't accept the reality of the "infinite". I acknowledge that it occurs in some of the maths of physics, but I deny that the map is the territory. (I can of course be persuaded by evidence, but I haven't seen any that addresses this point.)

A set effects always has a start to cause it.

No. Each element in the set of effects has its own causative history.

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards

No. See above as to "infinite".

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe

I think that's much more likely than not, but not for any of the reasons you've given.

hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.

I definitely suspect so, but not because of your argument.

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)

There are various hypotheses as to whether time needs a beginning. One is that time is an effect (eg of mass-energy), not an absolute of existence, so that time exists because mass/energy does, rather than vice versa. Another is that time is not necessarily one-directional or one-dimensional ie time may be multidimensional, moving at different speeds in different continua, and simultaneously creating a future in which different possible outcomes coexist.

(2) Had enough power to create the universe

The multiverse hypothesis (and possibly other hypotheses) covers this sufficiently.

The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me.

It could only not-move ie not-change in the absence of time. So the start and the finish of such not-movement would be simultaneous.

 

[Polymath257]

The only point that it completely collapses is with the understanding that at some point there was no thing, and later there was something. If you take isolated sentences you won't get what someone is saying.

And that is wrong. At no point is there 'no thing'. Whenever there was
space and time, there was matter and energy.

Read the OP. It's an argument from where the universe begins. If you don't believe there was a beginning as some do, then that's an a priori position. If you engage with the argument of the OP, its about a beginning.

In standard cosmology, there is no 'point' at which the universe begins.

That means at one point there was nothing, and at another point there was "a thing".

And in standard cosmology, that was not the case. There was no point when there was no thing.

Maybe you should at least make some argument to how that happened.

The four dimensional universe of spacetime simply exists. Time is within it, so it has no beginning in time nor an end in time. All causality occurs within that universe.

 

[firedragon]

And that is wrong. At no point is there 'no thing'.

In the OP, there is. So maybe you should try to relate to the OP.

 

[firedragon]

In standard cosmology, there is no 'point' at which the universe begins.

Its your conjecture. No one has proven this. It's your "wish". Unless of course you can give evidence that it's "concluded". No more question about it.

 

[firedragon]

These are a set of logical premises, not statements of fact. You have created them to make a logical argument that, in and of itself, only applies as pure logic. To apply that logic in the real world, you would have to subsequently demonstrate that all of your premises are valid.

The fundamental issue here is that you have created a set of premises that are internally contradictory. You can't declare that "all effects need a cause" but also that "there can be infinite effects without a cause". You call this a paradox (which it isn't really) but you try to resolve it in the wrong way. What you should do is recognise that your set of premises is logically flawed and create a new set that is internally consistent. If you don't have a consistent set of premises, it is meaningless (and essentially impossible) to apply any logic to them.

You appear to be trying to create a set of contradictory premises, "proving" that they are indeed contradictory and then leaping to the conclusion of "therefore, what I believe must be true.". That is not how this works.

It's like saying "P1: All apples are red, P2: Granny Smith apples are green" is contradictory, therefore I have a blue apple.

Can you explain how "all effects need a cause" is false"?

Asked out of curiosity.

 

[Polymath257]

Its your conjecture. No one has proven this. It's your "wish". Unless of course you can give evidence that it's "concluded". No more question about it.

Like I said, in standard cosmology, that is what happens.

In various extensions, there is a multiverse and what was previously said about the universe applies to the multiverse.

It isn't just a 'wish'. It is a statement about how the math and physics actually works out.

 

[sayak83]

All individual effects need a cause. p1
A set of effects is an effect. p2

Therefore set of infinite effects for induction reasons (and not apply parts as whole thing) is still an effect.c1 (p1 p2)

A set effects always has a start to cause it. p3

Time wise, infinite effects would exist without start since it has infinite span backwards p5

Therefore infinite effects is a paradox and impossible (p5 contradicts c1 + p3) c2
Therefore only finite sets are possible c3 (rephrasing of c2)

Therefore the universe it a finite set (application of possible worlds to this world - c2) c4

Therefore something before the universe is the start cause to the universe (c4 + p3) c5

It's clear to me, but I can help anyone with any of these premises.

Infinite set of effects is like a square triangle. If a square, not a triangle. If a triangle, not a square.

You can see inductively it would need a cause but also span wise in theory it would not have a cause, thus a paradox like square triangles.

It's impossible and hence the universe has a start and that needs a start causer.

When people reach this conclusion.

(1) That cause is eternal (never began)
(2) Had enough power to create the universe

The notion that the universe was in a state of non-movement, and all a sudden began to move after eternally not, doesn't stand to reason for me. If it's eternally not moving, it's not going to ever start.

So (a) magical being(s) created it.

This is a start to the right direction. It doesn't prove capital "God", but it's a step.

In an infinitely extending linear causal chain, every event is both a cause as well as an effect. Hence such a linear chain cannot be described merely as a set of effects only.
Trying to describe it as such is leading to the problem.

Also I wholly disagree that a set of effects is an effect. This is basic logical fallacy. A set of colors is not itself a color etc

 

[Polymath257]

In the OP, there is. So maybe you should try to relate to the OP.

I found the OP to be too incoherent to attempt to make sense of.

 

[firedragon]

Like I said, in standard cosmology, that is what happens.

Not good enough because you made a conclusive statement. So for that kind of thing, you should provide conclusive evidence.

Otherwise it's just conjecture posing as absolute fact.

 

[firedragon]

I found the OP to be too incoherent to attempt to make sense of.

Then question the coherence of the OP and clarify. Not make such irrelevant dilemmas.

 

[Polymath257]

Then question the coherence of the OP and clarify. Not make such irrelevant dilemmas.

Well, the first and most obvious problem is that the term 'event' and 'cause' have not been defined. So even determining whether the postulates are correct is impossible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the OP, there is. So maybe you should try to relate to the OP.

No. The OP should be corrected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not good enough because you made a conclusive statement. So for that kind of thing, you should provide conclusive evidence.

Otherwise it's just conjecture posing as absolute fact.

He said "in standard cosmology".
He didn't say it's absolute fact.

By saying "in standard cosmology", he acknowledges that this is what the current state of knowledge is given what we actually know today. We might know more tomorrow. We'll see then if it impacts current knowledge.

Until then, we can only go by what we actually know.

 

[firedragon]

Well, the first and most obvious problem is that the term 'event' and 'cause' have not been defined. So even determining whether the postulates are correct is impossible.

Yeah. Please also ask for definition of the word definition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The theistic argument is a logical argument.

No it isn't. No sound argument concludes, "therefore god." And if one presumes a god, his argument is unsound because at least one of his premises is unestablished. Faith (unjustified belief) is never logical.

This is not relevant to the OP.

Yes it is. Read them both again.

Please also ask for definition of the word definition.

No need. If you need help there, Google is your friend. Please allow me: Let Me Google That

 

[firedragon]

No it isn't.

It is.

).

No need.

Need. Some people need it.

Also, ask for the definition of the word "need", and "necessary".

Ask for the definition of the word "ask".

It will be good for you.

Yes it is. Read them both again.

No its not. Read the OP again.

Let's see if one could achieve better rhetoric.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. Please also ask for definition of the word definition.

OK. And if you look at the book by Kunen, you will find it.

A phrase P that uses previously defined or used words defines a word or term w when w is previously not used and and we postulate a logical equivalence between P and w.

The act of postulating this equivalence is what we call 'defining w in terms of P'.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can you explain how "all effects need a cause" is false"?

I didn't say it was, I only said that it is internally inconsistent with the other premise that "there can be infinite effects with no cause". Either one of them could be actually true but they can't both be by definition, so they can't both be stated as premises in the same logical proof.

@Link recognised this inconsistency in his OP too, he just took the wrong approach to resolving it.

 

[Link]

Since we are dealing with time, defining effect more of an event. Every event happens with a cause. But if this is dispute because of quantum unknown variables, I can, say every state of the universe is an effect in need of a previous cause.

However the original cause and effect, argument, also gives an example if there was at the same moment, something pushing down something else, another pushing down, and this went on to infinity, this chain would need a self-sufficient cause. The paradox I applied to would not apply to it since even if spanned infinity, it would reach an end.

My paradox however was easy to see time wise with events of universe going from state A to state B.

I'm not sure if my paradox applies to the endless chain without time, but I've seem some Islamic scholars argue philosophically this way:

Say there was infinite commanders, none would give command unless higher one gives it, and chain wise, each one is higher then the other. We can see logically, this would never happen since there is no highest. And so there would be no commands given.

Same analogy, we can give to "effect" and "cause". Each effect is saying, they won't come to be, unless previous effect commands it (to make analogous to example), but if this goes on forever, it will never start.

This is why you need a self-sufficient cause that breaks the chain.