The cosmological argument revisted.

[night912]

Dont you think this so called "something", if not eternal, and was a cause, would also require a cause because it is not eternal?

That was not the assumption for what I commented to, therefore, would've been irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

That was not the assumption for what I commented to, therefore, would've been irrelevant.

What do you "commit to"?

 

[Heyo]

No I don’t agree that the cause has to precede the effect. You have a huge burden proof, you have to show that the cause always (and necessarily) precedes the effect. Can you carry such a burden proof?

--

For example if you cut a square in 2 halves (with a diagonal) you will end up with 2 triangles.

Cause: cut the square in 2 halves

Effect: 2 triangles appear.

Both he cause and the effect would be simultaneous in this scenario, there is no point in time where the cause is fully fulfilled and the effect is missing.

So the alternatives

1 The universe had a cause / the cause and the effect are simultaneous

2 the universe came from nothing


Number 2 is incoherent, therefore number 1 is our best alternative.

"Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future." - Causality - Wikipedia (colour emphasis mine)

To re-iterate:

But you are still arguing that that universe/cosmos had a cause - which can't be, at least not in the traditional meaning of the word where the cause has to precede the effect.
Do we agree?

You have to redefine the meaning of "cause and effect" to uphold your argument. If you think that there was a definition that explicitly defined "cause and effect" as simultaneous, please post it. Otherwise I suppose you refer to your special definition of cause as the KCA-cause to avoid confusion.


Why is it important that a cause lies in the past of an effect?
Using your example:

Cause: cut the square in 2 halves

Effect: 2 triangles appear.

Both he cause and the effect would be simultaneous in this scenario, there is no point in time where the cause is fully fulfilled and the effect is missing.

I will rephrase a bit:

Cause: 2 triangles appear.

Effect: cut the square in 2 halves

Both he cause and the effect would be simultaneous in this scenario, there is no point in time where the cause is fully fulfilled and the effect is missing.​

Time is what distinguishes cause from effect. With two events occurring simultaneously, we can't say for sure that one caused the other even if we can show a causal link.


Now our alternatives look more like:

1 The universe's beginning and the beginning of an other event occurred simultaneously, we arbitrarily call the other event the KCA-cause.

2 other

Agree?

 

[leroy]

Only to you. And this is both yours and WLC's error. That is merely an argument from ignorance and an unjustified attempt to define God into existence. It is a terribly failed argument. You do not get to define a being into existence without proper evidence. And he has none.

An extensive and detailed explanation has been provided in post 309 here it is again: this quote explains in detail why the cause most necessarily has to be timeless spaceless inmaterial personal etc...

I will apriciate if you actually spot the specific errors/flaws/fallacies etc...

Conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of the universe enables us to recover a number of striking properties which this ultramundane cause must possess and which are of theological significance. For example, the cause must be uncaused, since, as we have seen, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. One could, of course, arbitrarily posit a plurality of causes in some sense prior to the origin of the universe, but ultimately, if the philosophical kalam arguments are sound, this causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused. There being no reason to perpetuate the series of events beyond the origin of the universe, Ockham’s Razor, which enjoins us not to posit causes beyond necessity, strikes such further causes in favor of an immediate First Cause of the origin of the universe. The same principle dictates that we are warranted in ignoring the possibility of a plurality of uncaused causes in favor of assuming the unicity of the First Cause.

This First Cause must also be beginningless, since by contraposition of premiss (1.0) whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. Moreover, this cause must be changeless, since, once more, an infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. We should not be warranted, however, in inferring the immutability of the First Cause, since immutability is a modal property, and from the Cause’s changelessness we cannot infer that it is incapable of change. But we can know that the First Cause is changeless, at least insofar as it exists sans the universe. From the changelessness of the First Cause, its immateriality follows. For whatever is material involves incessant change on at least the molecular and atomic levels, but the uncaused First Cause exists in a state of absolute changelessness. Given some relational theory of time, the Uncaused Cause must therefore also be timeless, at least sans the universe, since in the utter absence of events time would not exist. It is true that some philosophers have argued persuasively that time could continue to exist even if all events were to cease (Shoemaker, 1969; Forbes, 1993), but such arguments are inapplicable in the case at hand, where we are envisioning, not the cessation of events, but the utter absence of any events whatsoever. In any case, the timelessness of the First Cause sans the universe can be more directly inferred from the finitude of the past. Given that time had a beginning, the cause of the beginning of time must be timeless. [20] It follows that this Cause must also be spaceless, since it is both immaterial and timeless and no spatial entity can be both immaterial and timeless. If an entity is immaterial, it could exist in space only in virtue of being related to material things in space; but then it could not be timeless, since it undergoes extrinsic change in its relations to material things. Hence, the uncaused First Cause must transcend both time and space and be the cause of their origination. Such a being must be, moreover, enormously powerful, since it brought the entirety of physical reality, including all matter and energy and space-time itself, into being without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly taken to be personal. Three reasons can be given for this conclusion. First, as Richard Swinburne (1991, pp. 32-48) points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. For example, in answer to the question, “Why is the kettle boiling?” we might be told, “The heat of the flame is being conducted via the copper bottom of the kettle to the water, increasing the kinetic energy of the water molecules, such that they vibrate so violently that they break the surface tension of the water and are thrown off in the form of steam.” Or alternatively, we might be told, “I put it on to make a cup of tea. Would you like some?” The first provides a scientific explanation, the second a personal explanation. Each is a perfectly legitimate form of explanation; indeed, in certain contexts it would be wholly inappropriate to give one rather than the other. Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

Second, the personhood of the First Cause is already powerfully suggested by the properties which have been deduced by means of our conceptual analysis. For there appear to be only two candidates which can be described as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless beings: either abstract objects or an unembodied mind. Abstract objects like numbers, sets, propositions, and properties are very typically construed by philosophers who include such things in their ontology as being precisely the sort of entities which exist necessarily, timelessly, and spacelessly. Similarly philosophers who hold to the possibility of disembodied mind would describe such mental substances as immaterial and spaceless, and there seems no reason to think that a Cosmic Mind might not also be beginningless and uncaused. No other candidates which could be suitably described as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless beings come to mind. Nor has anyone else, to our knowledge, suggested any other such candidates. But no sort of abstract object can be the cause of the origin of the universe, for abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Even if they were,since they are not agents, they cannot volitionally exercise a causal power to do anything. If they were causes, they would be so, not as agents, but as mindless events or states. But they cannot be event-causes, since they do not exist in time and space. Even if we allow that some abstract objects exist in time (for example, propositions which change their truth-value in virtue of the tense of the sentences which express them), still, in view of their abstract nature, it remains utterly mysterious how they could be causally related to concrete objects so as to bring about events, including the origin of the universe. Nor can they be state-causes of states involving concrete objects, for the same reason, not to mention the fact that in the case at hand we are not talking about state-state causation (that is, the causal dependence of one state on another), but what would amount to state-event causation (namely, the universe’s coming into being because of the state of some abstract object(s)), which seems impossible. Thus, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind.

Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. We have concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a First Cause. By the nature of the case that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect

No, again that is an unjustified conclusion. It is merely an argument from ignorance. In fact it is a "God of the Gaps" argument. I don't know why this happened, therefore God.

Let's try with baby steps

Would you agree that the cause of the first computer that has ever existed necessarily has to be a non-computer? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer)

Would you agree that if time had a cause this cause would necessarily has to be timeless? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

 

[Subduction Zone]

An extensive and detailed explanation has been provided in post 309 here it is again: this quote explains in detail why the cause most necessarily has to be timeless spaceless inmaterial personal etc...

I will apriciate if you actually spot the specific errors/flaws/fallacies etc...





Let's try with baby steps

Would you agree that the cause of the first computer that has ever existed necessarily has to be a non-computer? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer)

Would you agree that if time had a cause this cause would necessarily has to be timeless? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

You ignore the fact that not all "effects" need a cause.

 

[leroy]

You ignore the fact that not all "effects" need a cause.

Changing the topic and making an irrelevant comment….. was this an honest mistake from your part, or is it a “debate tactic”

The point that I am making (and the one that you are supposed to refute) is that if the universe /multiverse / cosmos (including time) had a cause, this cause would have to be space less timeless immaterial personal etc………………..

If you what to argue that the universe didn’t had a cause, then that would be a completely different topic and a completely different objection.

you also forggot to answer these questions.............. if you dont answer them, I will assume that your answer is "yes I agree" for both questions.

Would you agree that the cause of the first computer that has ever existed necessarily has to be a non-computer? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer)

Would you agree that if time had a cause this cause would necessarily has to be timeless? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

 

[leroy]

"Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future." - Causality - Wikipedia (colour emphasis mine)

To re-iterate:


You have to redefine the meaning of "cause and effect" to uphold your argument. If you think that there was a definition that explicitly defined "cause and effect" as simultaneous, please post it. Otherwise I suppose you refer to your special definition of cause as the KCA-cause to avoid confusion.


Why is it important that a cause lies in the past of an effect?
Using your example:

I will rephrase a bit:

Cause: 2 triangles appear.

Effect: cut the square in 2 halves

Both he cause and the effect would be simultaneous in this scenario, there is no point in time where the cause is fully fulfilled and the effect is missing.​

Time is what distinguishes cause from effect. With two events occurring simultaneously, we can't say for sure that one caused the other even if we can show a causal link.


Now our alternatives look more like:

1 The universe's beginning and the beginning of an other event occurred simultaneously, we arbitrarily call the other event the KCA-cause.

2 other

Agree?

I don’t understand your point, are you affirming that the cause necessarily has to precede the effect?

Now our alternatives look more like:

1 The universe's beginning and the beginning of an other event occurred simultaneously, we arbitrarily call the other event the KCA-cause.

2 other

It would be option 1, but I don’t see why is that “arbitrary”


All I am saying is that if the universe/cosmos (including time) had a cause there are 3 options

1 the cause happened before the effect (which is logically incoherent becasue you cant have "before" whitout time)

2 the cause happened after the effect (which is logically incoherent for everybody except for time travelers)

3 the cause and the effect happened simultaneously (which seems coherent)

So we are stoked with option 3………any disagreement? Would you affirm 1 or 2 instead?

Time is what distinguishes cause from effect. With two events occurring simultaneously, we can't say for sure that one caused the other even if we can show a causal link.

Ok, but all that proves is that we (humans) have a limited brain and limited knowledge …. I don’t see your point. … all that shows is that when the cause and the effect are simultaneous it’s hard to tell which one is the cause and which one is the effect. (I don’t fully agree, but I don’t see the point)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Changing the topic and making an irrelevant comment….. was this an honest mistake from your part, or is it a “debate tactic”

The point that I am making (and the one that you are supposed to refute) is that if the universe /multiverse / cosmos (including time) had a cause, this cause would have to be space less timeless immaterial personal etc………………..

If you what to argue that the universe didn’t had a cause, then that would be a completely different topic and a completely different objection.

you also forggot to answer these questions.............. if you dont answer them, I will assume that your answer is "yes I agree" for both questions.

LOL!! I did not change the topic. You did not understand the correction. Your argument fails because you insist on treating the universe as if it were Newtonian.

 

[Heyo]

I don’t understand your point, are you affirming that the cause necessarily has to precede the effect?

Yes, as long as we stick to the definition of "cause and effect".
But I anticipated that you wouldn't so I gave the escape of expanding the traditional definition to the "KCA-cause".

Now our alternatives look more like:

1 The universe's beginning and the beginning of an other event occurred simultaneously, we arbitrarily call the other event the KCA-cause.

It would be option 1, but I don’t see why is that “arbitrary”

It is arbitrary by the traditional definition as there the cause has to precede the effect.
We haven't yet defined how to differentiate KCA-cause from KCA-effect.

Proposal:
We allow for both options to be valid view points (similar to viewing light as both particle and wave).
Since we already agreed that time began at the Big Bang and therefore the KCA-cause has to have a beginning, just like the universe, this also accounts for that problem as now the KCA-cause is caused by the universe.
But I'm open to other suggestions.

All I am saying is that if the universe/cosmos (including time) had a cause there are 3 options

1 the cause happened before the effect (which is logically incoherent becasue you cant have "before" whitout time)

2 the cause happened after the effect (which is logically incoherent for everybody except for time travelers)

3 the cause and the effect happened simultaneously (which seems coherent)

So we are stoked with option 3………any disagreement? Would you affirm 1 or 2 instead?

No, for now I'm willing to entertain option 3 (even though we have left traditional logic).
But keep in the back of your mind that there is also a 4th option. All our reasoning rests on the premise that every thing that has a beginning has to have a cause. It might just be that that is not true. (It isn't in traditional logic as we run into contradictions (1 or 2) if it is.)

Ok, but all that proves is that we (humans) have a limited brain and limited knowledge …. I don’t see your point. … all that shows is that when the cause and the effect are simultaneous it’s hard to tell which one is the cause and which one is the effect. (I don’t fully agree, but I don’t see the point)

Show me a way to discern cause and effect with simultaneous effects, at least theoretically, or I postulate, with the same authority you use that it is hard, that it is impossible.

 

[night912]

For example if you cut a square in 2 halves (with a diagonal) you will end up with 2 triangles.

Cause: cut the square in 2 halves

Effect: 2 triangles appear.

Both he cause and the effect would be simultaneous in this scenario, there is no point in time where the cause is fully fulfilled and the effect is missing.

No it wouldn't. Until the two halves are fully cut, the effect of the appearance of 2 triangles cannot have happened. The square must be cut in order for the 2 triangles to appear.

 

[leroy]

LOL!! I did not change the topic. You did not understand the correction. Your argument fails because you insist on treating the universe as if it were Newtonian.

The claim is that if the universe had a cause, the cause would have to be timeless, space less, immaterial personal etc.


So ether agree with the claim or explain and justify the reasons for your disagreement. … please be clear and avoid ambiguous “non-answers” like the answer that you just gave.

---
given that you ignored the questions I will assume that you agree.................so sice we agree I wont answer to your comments untill you spot a point of disagreement.

you also forggot to answer these questions.............. if you dont answer them, I will assume that your answer is "yes I agree" for both questions.
---

Would you agree that the cause of the first computer that has ever existed necessarily has to be a non-computer? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer)

Would you agree that if time had a cause this cause would necessarily has to be timeless? (Otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of Time)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim is that if the universe had a cause, the cause would have to be timeless, space less, immaterial personal etc.


So ether agree with the claim or explain and justify the reasons for your disagreement. … please be clear and avoid ambiguous “non-answers” like the answer that you just gave.

---
given that you ignored the questions I will assume that you agree.................so sice we agree I wont answer to your comments untill you spot a point of disagreement.

And the claim is without merit.

 

[leroy]

Yes, as long as we stick to the definition of "cause and effect".
But I anticipated that you wouldn't so I gave the escape of expanding the traditional definition to the "KCA-cause".

Cause-Effect is simply a relationship where the existence of the effect is dependent upon the existence of the cause. (Without the cause, the effect cant exist)

For example to claim that the rock is the cause of the broken window , simply means that without the rock, the “broken window” wouldn’t exist………..(but the rock can exist even without the broken window)

This is what I mean by Cause in the context of the KCA.

If this is not a proper definition / description of cause, then call it however you want

show me a way to discern cause and effect with simultaneous effects, at least theoretically, or I postulate, with the same authority you use that it is hard, that it is impossible

The effect can’t exist without the cause, but the cause can exist without the effect. (at least sometimes)………. In the context of the KCA argument the cause (God or something else) can exist without the universe, but the universe can’t exist without the cause.

No, for now I'm willing to entertain option 3 (even though we have left traditional logic).
But keep in the back of your mind that there is also a 4th option. All our reasoning rests on the premise that every thing that has a beginning has to have a cause. It might just be that that is not true. (It isn't in traditional logic as we run into contradictions (1 or 2) if it is.)


S.

given this defintion of cause, woudl you agree that option 3 is the best (and the only logically coherent)

 

[leroy]

And the claim is without merit.

Maybe, but you have to justify that conclusion…………..

 

[McBell]

Maybe, but you have to justify that conclusion…………..

Rehashing the same centuries old claims with nothing new will not gain different results.
The choir will remain convinced and those outside the choir will remain unconvinced.

 

[leroy]

No it wouldn't. Until the two halves are fully cut, the effect of the appearance of 2 triangles cannot have happened. The square must be cut in order for the 2 triangles to appear.

Aja, so what?

My claim is that the triangles begin to exist exactly when you cut the square in halves…….any disagreement?

 

[McBell]

Aja, so what?

My claim is that the triangles begin to exist exactly when you cut the square in halves…….any disagreement?

I disagree that that is what you claimed.

As I said, you are conflating simultaneous with instantaneous.
Simultaneous is not true.
Instantaneous is true.
They are NOT the same thing.

 

[leroy]

Rehashing the same centuries old claims with nothing new will not gain different results.
The choir will remain convinced and those outside the choir will remain unconvinced.

If your only objection to the KCA is that “the claim is old”……… then I can pretty much proclaim victory.

When atheist make a claim I usually can spot my point of disagreement and I explain why I disagree. Why can’t you do the same? ……….. why this annoying tendency of avoiding the responsibility of supporting your claims?

 

[Heyo]

Cause-Effect is simply a relationship where the existence of the effect is dependent upon the existence of the cause. (Without the cause, the effect cant exist)

For example to claim that the rock is the cause of the broken window , simply means that without the rock, the “broken window” wouldn’t exist………..(but the rock can exist even without the broken window)

This is what I mean by Cause in the context of the KCA.

If this is not a proper definition / description of cause, then call it however you want

I call that an unsubstantiated assertion.

The effect can’t exist without the cause, but the cause can exist without the effect. (at least sometimes)………. In the context of the KCA argument the cause (God or something else) can exist without the universe, but the universe can’t exist without the cause.

Given that we know that the universe exists (and I guess we agree on that) and the existence of a parallel cause is at least questionable, the universe seems to do pretty well without a cause whereas the cause seems to need people to believe in it.

given this defintion of cause, woudl you agree that option 3 is the best (and the only logically coherent)

I think you haven't sufficiently explained the difference between KCA-cause and KCA-effect. You have asserted that the cause is necessary for the effect but you didn't logically show the difference..

 

[leroy]

I disagree that that is what you claimed.

As I said, you are conflating simultaneous with instantaneous.
Simultaneous is not true.
Instantaneous is true.
They are NOT the same thing.

Whats the difference? Define each