A rephrasing of the cosmological argument.

[Link]

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.

The issue span wise, infinity would be something eternal. It cannot be composed. So the contradiction and paradox happens when you try to compose it and slice it into events.

Another way to tackle the issue:

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.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Haha. Okay okay. You are right. That's a direct contradiction. Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

There are different versions of cosmological argument. Kalam is only one of them. In Aquinas' version the beginning of time is irrelevant:

In Aquinas’s version, consideration of the essential ordering of the causes or reasons proceeds independent of temporal concerns. The relationship between cause and effect is treated as real but not temporal, so that the first cause is not a first cause in time but a sustaining cause (Siniscalchi 2018: 691). In the kalām version, however, the temporal ordering of the causal sequence is central, introducing issues of the nature of time into the discussion. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

 

[HonestJoe]

The issue span wise, infinity would be something eternal. It cannot be composed. So the contradiction and paradox happens when you try to compose it and slice it into events.

I'm not talking about what actually is or can be, I'm talking about your fundamental logical premises.

You created contradictory premises and so your logic is fundamentally flawed. Nothing you wrote from that point matters. If you're proposing that infinite effects are impossible, that is a premise of it's own. You don't even really need that at all to be honest, since the premise that "All effects require a cause" essentially implies it.

From that point, your pure logic would (sort of) work;

P1: All effects require a cause
P2: A set of effects is an effect
P3: The Universe is a set of effects

Therefore, the Universe requires a cause.

Now, if you wish to use that pure logic to actually say anything about the real world, you would need to establish that all of your premises are in fact true. I'm not sure you can do that. Even if you could, it wouldn't get you anywhere close to an argument for the nature of that proposed cause. It doesn't even get you being(s), it certainly doesn't get you "magical". I think it'd be better to address that with a separate logical proposition (because that's a whole different mess of problems).

 

[Link]

You can always prove things by contradiction.

It's a valid way to prove things.

 

[Link]

From that point, your pure logic would (sort of) work;

P1: All effects require a cause
P2: A set of effects is an effect
P3: The Universe is a set of effects

Therefore, the Universe requires a cause

True this would work, but "set of effects is an effect", people will say not if infinite span of effects, then it needs no cause. Since this can be seen as an exception and you can't just generalize and apply to it with no proof. So to prove 2, takes work. And so yes you are right, you can summarize the op in that, but, then I would have to expand and say why "infinite set of effects" is not an exception to the rule.

 

[Link]

Also, when I said the first two premises, I meant "In general". Infinite set of effects included in that universally, is cheating. You have to address it. Sometimes people say sentences but don't mean absolute universality, just generality. I concluded based on induction, the same would be true about infinite set of effects. But that also showed, if time wise, it spanned forever, it would not need a start. This is a paradox.

 

[HonestJoe]

True this would work, but "set of effects is an effect", people will say not if infinite span of effects, then it needs no cause.

That doesn't contradict your logic though, because your logic is based on the premise that all effects require a cause. If all effects require a cause (regardless of whether they're "infinite" or not) and if the universe is an effect then the universe requires a cause.

To apply your logic to the real world though, you need to establish that all of your premises actually apply in the real world. That would be distinct from the logical proposition itself. Even if it was definitively proven that any of your premises don't apply in the real world, the logic would still be valid in itself.

If I proposed logic that "P1: I am able to teleport at will. P2: I want to be in New York. Therefore, I will teleport to New York" that proposition remans logically valid even though I can't actually teleport (and don't especially want to be in New York for that matter).

So to prove 2, takes work.

I think this demonstrates your misunderstanding here. None of your premises need to be established to be true in the real world to make your logic valid but all of your premises need to be established to be true in the real world to actually apply that logic to the real world.

Establishing the truth of premises often will take work (sometimes it will be impossible) but that is ultimately on you since you chose to create and present all of those premises in the first place. If you want to present a logical proposition to apply in the real world, you need to only use premises that you are able to clearly and unconditionally establish as true. If you can't do that, you need to consider the possibility that your underlying hypothesis isn't true (however much you might want to believe it).

 

[leroy]

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

.

Why would premise 2 be true?


Why is premise 2 important or relevant?

why not simply saying

All individual effects need a cause. p1
the oprigin of the universe is an effect. p2


what is the point of introducing sets and that kind of stuff?

 

[Link]

Why would premise 2 be true?


Why is premise 2 important or relevant?

why not simply saying

All individual effects need a cause. p1
the oprigin of the universe is an effect. p2


what is the point of introducing sets and that kind of stuff?

You bring a good point. But I explained why already. I believe "infinite chain" would be an exception but is also not, so a paradox. So I want to show why it's excluded while the premise is general but not meant in absolute way to include this exception.

I want to show why the universe is not an infinite series of effects, because, it's impossible.

Another way is to say:

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.

 

[Link]

That doesn't contradict your logic though, because your logic is based on the premise that all effects require a cause.

Yes, but as I clarified I meant "all" as in "in general ALL", not "absolute no exception", because the latter would need proof for the infinite series. So I meant in a way that infinite series can be excluded, but show how it would be an effect in need of a cause still by some logic but also that it would not require a cause by some logic, and hence a paradox.

Another way to tackle the exception (which I never meant to be included):

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.

 

[leroy]

You bring a good point. But I explained why already. I believe "infinite chain" would be an exception but is also not, so a paradox. So I want to show why it's excluded while the premise is general but not meant in absolute way to include this exception.

I want to show why the universe is not an infinite series of effects, because, it's impossible.

Another way is to say:

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.

Yes I understand why infinite is impossible , it's just not clear to me what you mean by premise 2 in the OP.

 

[Willamena]

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)

You're suggesting that an infinite set of 'effects with a cause' is not possible, but I don't see an argument for why. Simply saying that it's so isn't an argument.

Edit: Can someone explain to me why an infinite chain is impossible?

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, but as I clarified I meant "all" as in "in general ALL", not "absolute no exception", because the latter would need proof for the infinite series.

That is not what the word "all" means, regardless of your intention, especially in a structured context like formal logic. You have to be very clear and specific in your statements if you want your logic to be valid.

It seems like you meant "All finite events have a cause", which would be fine as a premise. You would then need to address "infinite events" with additional premises and logic, either as part of the same proposition or as a second one.

So I meant in a way that infinite series can be excluded, but show how it would be an effect in need of a cause still by some logic but also that it would not require a cause by some logic, and hence a paradox.

This isn't just "some logic", it is your logic. If your logic is self-contradictory or leads to a "paradox", your logic is wrong. It is as simple as that.

Again, the core problem here seems to be that you already have the predetermined conclusion you believe and you're trying to work backwards to create logic that supports your beliefs. That isn't how it works and would explain why your proposition is such a mess.

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.

So infinite effects don't have a cause? So if the universe is infinite, it wouldn't need a cause?

 

[Link]

That is not what the word "all" means, regardless of your intention, especially in a structured context like formal logic. You have to be very clear and specific in your statements if you want your logic to be valid.

It seems like you meant "All finite events have a cause", which would be fine as a premise. You would then need to address "infinite events" with additional premises and logic, either as part of the same proposition or as a second one.

This isn't just "some logic", it is your logic. If your logic is self-contradictory or leads to a "paradox", your logic is wrong. It is as simple as that.

Again, the core problem here seems to be that you already have the predetermined conclusion you believe and you're trying to work backwards to create logic that supports your beliefs. That isn't how it works and would explain why your proposition is such a mess.

So infinite effects don't have a cause? So if the universe is infinite, it wouldn't need a cause?

Salam

You are right, it's my bad. In Arabic, I'm use to Quran making generalizations.

 

[firedragon]

There are different versions of cosmological argument. Kalam is only one of them. In Aquinas' version the beginning of time is irrelevant:

In Aquinas’s version, consideration of the essential ordering of the causes or reasons proceeds independent of temporal concerns. The relationship between cause and effect is treated as real but not temporal, so that the first cause is not a first cause in time but a sustaining cause (Siniscalchi 2018: 691). In the kalām version, however, the temporal ordering of the causal sequence is central, introducing issues of the nature of time into the discussion. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

This thread actually is not about a Kalam cosmological argument or the acquinas version.

 

[HonestJoe]

Salam

You are right, it's my bad. In Arabic, I'm use to Quran making generalizations.

Are you saying I'm just right on your use of the word "all" or right on the entire thing, that your logic doesn't support the idea of creator gods at all?

 

[firedragon]

Again, the core problem here seems to be that you already have the predetermined conclusion you believe and you're trying to work backwards to create logic that supports your beliefs. That isn't how it works and would explain why your proposition is such a mess.

This is honestly done by everyone. Even you. Every atheist apologist here in this forum, and everywhere else. Every theist who uses these philosophical arguments. Everyone. There are some atheists who become theists who maybe the only set of people who could boldly claim that they did not work backwards, and no one else can claim that because someone can character analyse them like you just did here.

That's the reason this kind of character analysis is unqualified and is an ad hominem. It's invalid. Or at least, there is no point.

 

[firedragon]

It seems like you meant "All finite events have a cause", which would be fine as a premise. You would then need to address "infinite events" with additional premises and logic, either as part of the same proposition or as a second one.

That's not really necessary because one could assume certain things are given but can be explained if asked for.

Infinite events (if there is such phrase) by definition cannot have a cause because it's infinite. Unless someone invents an infinity that began some day, but will keep going infinitely in the future. Or, unless it's a mathematical calculation that ends with an infinity and someone associates that with a so called "event". But that does not stand logically as an entailment because you would deem that as an incalculable time period only. But it had a beginning. Which is not an infinite in logical discourse.

I'd say that's intuitive.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is honestly done by everyone.

Well, everyone who tries to prove their existing beliefs using pure logic, which can indeed involve all sorts of people with all sorts of different beliefs. I don't think it's unfair to point that out and Link seemed to take it in the manner it was intended.

That's not really necessary because one could assume certain things are given but can be explained if asked for.

That's exactly what I said. The assumption would be an additional premise and the explanation would be additional logic.

I'd say that's intuitive.

If it's so intuitive, why did you take a whole rambling paragraph to (try to) explain it?