The cosmological argument revisted.

[TagliatelliMonster]

The argument is that infinite regression is an impossibility. How do you refute that in order to propagate what you said above?

To me, this smells like a false dichotomy.

ie: either infinite regress, or else god.

 

[night912]

What Is the point of quoting my question, if you are not going to answer the question?

This is just one point, to make a comment about what you said.

Here's my question for you. What's the point of you denying what you and other people said on a public forum?

You do realize that you're not the only one who can see the posts, right?

 

[night912]

I don’t think we disagree on anything, please correct me if I am wrong.

Great. So it was a checkmate. Since we both agree that you lost. How about you start a brand new game. Why are you still trying to play on the same board with with all the played pieces still in place?

Here's an advice. Know your opponent and you will mostly likely know what his next couple of moves thar he'll make. Don't know your opponent and you will lose just about every single time.

And when attempting to control and direct your opponent, ask yourself, did your opponent directed you to end where you currently are?

It was entertaining and we should do it again sometime in the future, but please, go practice more before coming back.

 

[leroy]

I'd say that concepts, like the Platonic ideals, can be timeless, but "stuff" like strings can't when we keep to the idea that the cosmos had a beginning. And a mind can't be timeless either because you can't have timeless thoughts.

Mind, thoughts, God etc … these are all words that exist in our vocabulary and any definition would be subjective and arbitrary.

The point is that if the universe / cosmos (including time) had a cause, this cause by definition would have to be something timeless (otherwise it cannot be the cause of time)……….whether if there are words in our vocabulary to label such a concept or not is secondary and irrelevant.

Any disagreement? Do you agree with the stuff in red letters?

 

[Heyo]

if the universe / cosmos (including time) had a cause, this cause by definition would have to be something timeless

Any disagreement? Do you agree with the stuff in red letters?

Only that minor change, that doesn't change the meaning but prevents misunderstandings later on.

 

[leroy]

Here's my question for you. What's the point of you denying what you and other people said on a public forum?

Can you quote a single example where I did such a thing?

Please provide 3 quotes

1 Me making the claim

2 you (or someone else refuting my claim)

3 me denying that such a refutation ever took place.

Can you do that?..............obviously not, because you are just making stuff up, its very easy to be you, all you have to do is claim that “the argument has already been refuted”, and then find ridiculous excuses for not quoting such a refutation.

 

[leroy]

Great. So it was a checkmate. Since we both agree that you lost. How about you start a brand new game. Why are you still trying to play on the same board with with all the played pieces still in place?

Here's an advice. Know your opponent and you will mostly likely know what his next couple of moves thar he'll make. Don't know your opponent and you will lose just about every single time.

And when attempting to control and direct your opponent, ask yourself, did your opponent directed you to end where you currently are?

It was entertaining and we should do it again sometime in the future, but please, go practice more before coming back.

Ohhh, ok I thought this was a forum where people are suppose to share their views with other people, but given your correction know I know that this is a “Chess Game” and that I am suppose to win through some wise “debate tactic”

 

[leroy]

As Lawrence Krauss once put it:

Philosophy is great at asking questions. Science is great at answering them.

Interestingly and paradoxically, that is a philosophical claim.

 

[McBell]

Ohhh, ok I thought this was a forum where people are suppose to share their views with other people, but given your correction know I know that this is a “Chess Game” and that I am suppose to win through some wise “debate tactic”

You do know this thread is in a debate DIR, right?

 

[leroy]

Only that minor change, that doesn't change the meaning but prevents misunderstandings later on.

Ok and would you agree that there are only 3 possibilities? (if I am missing a forth please let me know)….

1 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is deterministic

2 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is random

3 the cause of the universe / cosmos (including time) is personal (with libertarian free will)

(or a combination of 2 or more)

These are the only 3 types of causes that are at least hypothetically possible and that have been discussed in the literature, please let know If I am missing something.

 

[Heyo]

Ok and would you agree that there are only 3 possibilities? (if I am missing a forth please let me know)….

1 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is deterministic

2 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is random

3 the cause of the universe / cosmos (including time) is personal (with libertarian free will)

(or a combination of 2 or more)

These are the only 3 types of causes that are at least hypothetically possible and that have been discussed in the literature, please let know If I am missing something.

Since I can't think of a 4th option, I will grant you these 3. But I see each one of those leading to a paradox in our case, so non of the 3 are really options.

- it can't be deterministic as that means the cause had to have a cause (so we are in infinite regress, again)
- it can't be random as that conflicts with our assumption that everything has a cause
- it can't be personal as that requires a "person" to exist. A person can't be a Platonic ideal and everything else, especially everything physical, doesn't exist according to the premise that the cosmos had a beginning and nothing else existed before. (And free will doesn't exist either.)

Conclusion: either your 3 are a false trichotomy or one of the premises is wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interestingly and paradoxically, that is a philosophical claim.

No

It's an observation

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok and would you agree that there are only 3 possibilities? (if I am missing a forth please let me know)….

1 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is deterministic

2 the cause of the universe/cosmos (including time) is random

3 the cause of the universe / cosmos (including time) is personal (with libertarian free will)

(or a combination of 2 or more)

4. talking about a "cause" of the universe is non-sensical as causality requires temporal context, which is inherently part of the universe and thus can't be invoked in a setting without said universe

 

[leroy]

Since I can't think of a 4th option, I will grant you these 3. But I see each one of those leading to a paradox in our case, so non of the 3 are really options.

- it can't be deterministic as that means the cause had to have a cause (so we are in infinite regress, again)
- it can't be random as that conflicts with our assumption that everything has a cause
- it can't be personal as that requires a "person" to exist. A person can't be a Platonic ideal and everything else, especially everything physical, doesn't exist according to the premise that the cosmos had a beginning and nothing else existed before. (And free will doesn't exist either.)

Conclusion: either your 3 are a false trichotomy or one of the premises is wrong.

I am proposing an unembodied mind as a cause for the universe. What is incoherent about that.

...
If the cause is timeless it means that it has always been there. (Begining less)

Paradox: If the cause is deterministic or random it remains inexplicable why te cause has always been there and the effect only popped 14 B years ago.
.......if the Cause has always been there why not the effect? .........

The only solution to this paradox would be that the cause has libertarian free will , he simply descuides to create the universe 14B years ago.

 

[Heyo]

I am proposing an unembodied mind as a cause for the universe. What is incoherent about that.

...
If the cause is timeless it means that it has always been there. (Begining less)

Paradox: If the cause is deterministic or random it remains inexplicable why te cause has always been there and the effect only popped 14 B years ago.
.......if the Cause has always been there why not the effect? .........

The only solution to this paradox would be that the cause has libertarian free will , he simply descuides to create the universe 14B years ago.

That explains nothing. I can, with the same logic, ask why the cause decided to create the universe at a given point in time (from our point of view) as you ask why the cosmos started at that time.

But that isn't my main point. I granted timelessness to Platonic ideals, not to entities. A mind that is able to make decisions is not a Platonic ideal. Timelessness is different from being eternal. And we already excluded eternities.

 

[leroy]

That explains nothing. I can, with the same logic, ask why the cause decided to create the universe at a given point in time (from our point of view) as you ask why the cosmos started at that time.

But the relevant question is
"Why is the cause timeless (therefore atemporal , therefore permanent) and the effect temporal ?

If the cause of the big bang has always been there, why didn't it "banged" at infinite past?

The only way to solve this paradox is by claiming that the cause most be personal

*A more detailed explanation on this paradox at the end of post.

But that isn't my main point. I granted timelessness to Platonic ideals, not to entities. A mind that is able to make decisions is not a Platonic ideal. Timelessness is different from being eternal. And we already excluded eternities.

Once you accept that the universe (including time) had a cause you are automatically accepting a timeless cause.


And once you accept a timeless cause you have to choose between a deterministic cause, a random cause or a personal cause .....since the first 2 are incoherent due to the paradox mentioned above, you are left with a personal cause. (Something with libertarian free will)


------

A deeper explanation on the paradox

--++++;

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

 

[leroy]

4. talking about a "cause" of the universe is non-sensical as causality requires temporal context, which is inherently part of the universe and thus can't be invoked in a setting without said universe

4. talking about a "cause" of the universe is non-sensical as causality requires temporal context, which is inherently part of the universe and thus can't be invoked in a setting without said universe

..

as causality requires temporal context,

That assertion has to be proven.


(An explanation on what you mean by temporal context would also be grate)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..

That assertion has to be proven.

(An explanation on what you mean by temporal context would also be grate)

In modern physics, "time" is considered an intrinsic part of the dimensions of the universe.
It's called space-time for a reason you know.

This logically means that if you remove the universe form existence, you effectively remove both space and time.

Secondly, causality is an aspect of the physics of the universe. And not even universal at that. It really only applies on the classical macroscopic level. Once you are talking about quantum levels, not so much.

Anyhow, once again: remove the universe = remove the physics of the universe.

When talking about the origins of the universe, we are discussing a context where the universe does not exist. Logically, you can't invoke inherent parts of the universe in that context, since they don't exist either - the universe needs to exist for those inherent parts to exist.

Temporal context: a context where time exists; where time flows.
Causality requires the flow of time, as causes happen before effects.



In every sense of the word, in context of modern physics, you can't logically invoke "causality" to address the origins of the universe, as "causality" as we know it requires the universe to exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am proposing an unembodied mind as a cause for the universe. What is incoherent about that.

Apart from the fact that the very idea of "unembodied mind" makes zero sense?

...
If the cause is timeless it means that it has always been there. (Begining less)

"always" is a period of time.

Paradox: If the cause is deterministic or random it remains inexplicable why te cause has always been there and the effect only popped 14 B years ago.

"only popped up 4b years ago" has no relevancy to a timeless cause. The very concept of "14b years" is of no relevance to a timeless context.

So I don't understand your objection here. The 14b is only applicable within the confines of the space-time continuum.

.......if the Cause has always been there why not the effect? .........

Who says it wasn't? You're the only one here who claims to have "the answers", you know?

The only solution to this paradox would be that the cause has libertarian free will , he simply descuides to create the universe 14B years ago.

That doesn't follow at all and sounds more like a gigantic argument from ignorance then anything else.
Not to mention mega confirmation bias, begging the question and assuming your conclusion, off course.

Rarely have I seen so many fallacies combined into a single brainfart.

 

[Heyo]

But the relevant question is
"Why is the cause timeless (therefore atemporal , therefore permanent) and the effect temporal ?

If the cause of the big bang has always been there, why didn't it "banged" at infinite past?

The only way to solve this paradox is by claiming that the cause most be personal

*A more detailed explanation on this paradox at the end of post.


Once you accept that the universe (including time) had a cause you are automatically accepting a timeless cause.


And once you accept a timeless cause you have to choose between a deterministic cause, a random cause or a personal cause .....since the first 2 are incoherent due to the paradox mentioned above, you are left with a personal cause. (Something with libertarian free will)


------

A deeper explanation on the paradox

--++++;

You are, once again, engaging in the fallacy of stopping to think at a convenient point.
That is the rhetorical trick of the false dilemma (or this case trilemma). Let's rearrange the order of inspection:
"And once you accept a timeless cause you have to choose between a personal cause, a random cause or a deterministic cause .....since the first 2 are incoherent due to the paradox mentioned above, you are left with a deterministic cause."
You dismiss A and B and conclude it must be C. You refuse to examine C because it must be true.
That's not how logic works.

So lets examine option C:
Change is always temporal. There is a "before" and an "after" state.
Do we agree?

Something that is able to make a decision, changes its state from "undecided" to "decided". Therefore something that can make decisions can't be timeless.
Do we agree?

Therefore the "personal" option of the trilemma is impossible and we are left with zero options.