The first cause argument

[sun rise]

The scientific method is philosophy.

It is not. Since you disagree, something more than an assertion is needed. Please try to understand what the scientific method is: The Scientific Method | Boundless Psychology

• The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis, and 4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis.
• The major precepts of the scientific method employed by all scientific disciplines are verifiability, predictability, falsifiability, and fairness.
• The application of the scientific theory to psychology took the discipline from a form of philosophy to a form of science.
• Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. Without it, you cannot use logic to come to conclusions.

Science does not work towards truths or facts. Science seeks to explain the physical world. Try to understand science. Not to be a scientist, everyone has their field of study and professions. But try to understand science.

What is your science degree in. Please try to understand that with an MS in Chemistry I know about science and the scientific method having spent years in college and graduate school immersed in it. Thus your implication that I'm ignorance about the scientific method is false.

 

[Nimos]

We do have a clue..
..but I think you reject it.

Personally, I reject that the universe came from no-where.
It would be like a movie without a projector.

Im not claiming that the Universe came from nothing or that it didn't have a cause, simply that we don't know.

Jumping to a conclusion without anything to back it up doesn't seem like the correct approach and I assume your "clue" is that God did it. But what encourage you to validate that assumption then? Also I could claim that aliens did it, which you would reject, but nonetheless it would be just as supported as to claim that God did it. In fact I think it would be better supported as we are evidence of life being possible and that life can create things, as humans are evidence of that.

We can't simply just accept things or reject certain possibilities when we don't know. And therefore the only logical answer to the question should be "We don't know" and we have to keep trying to figure out how it could happen. And the fact is that we might never know, but that doesn't mean that simply throwing in some random excuse is a better solution or even remotely likely to be true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jumping to a conclusion without anything to back it up doesn't seem like the correct approach and I assume your "clue" is that God did it. But what encourage you to validate that assumption then?

It was suggested to me when I was young..
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small..

It made perfect sense to me at the time.
As I grew older, I found out more.
Eventually, in my early twenties, I found out about Islam, and have never looked back since.
I think that there is plenty of reasons to believe that is the truth.
Jesus and Muhammad are very famous, and I don't think it is all made up.

..simply throwing in some random excuse is a better solution or even remotely likely to be true.

We all see what we see.

 

[firedragon]

It is not. Since you disagree, something more than an assertion is needed. Please try to understand what the scientific method is: The Scientific Method | Boundless Psychology

• The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis, and 4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis.
• The major precepts of the scientific method employed by all scientific disciplines are verifiability, predictability, falsifiability, and fairness.
• The application of the scientific theory to psychology took the discipline from a form of philosophy to a form of science.
• Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. Without it, you cannot use logic to come to conclusions.

This is philosophy. Every tom, dick and harry understand what the scientific method is. But its philosophy.

Ill tell you what. Can you provide sufficient scientific evidence for "make an observation that describes a problem"? No you cannot. Because it is a philosophical statement. This philosophy is applied in science.

Anyone who has most basic knowledge on philosophy knows this.

 

[firedragon]

What is your science degree in. Please try to understand that with an MS in Chemistry I know about science and the scientific method having spent years in college and graduate school immersed in it. Thus your implication that I'm ignorance about the scientific method is false.

Did you just dream up someone saying "I have a degree in science"? Dont dream things up for other people, and dont put words into other peoples mouths.

The scientific method has been applied in science as an axiom since at least the 10th century since ibn Haytham. Maybe even before. But this guy is credited with it. In his book he says "I applied the scientific method", and is used as an axiom in science. It is philosophy. If you want to read on it, you can read Sanders Peirce section, pragmatism, pragmaticism and the scientific method in the Stanford encyclopaedia or philosophy, or Bradley monton, or Understanding Philosophy of Science by James Ladyman.

Now you can do your next step as a last say. I withdraw from this discussion.

 

[Nimos]

It was suggested to me when I was young..
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small..

It made perfect sense to me at the time.
As I grew older, I found out more.
Eventually, in my early twenties, I found out about Islam, and have never looked back since.
I think that there is plenty of reasons to believe that is the truth.
Jesus and Muhammad are very famous, and I don't think it is all made up.


We all see what we see.

I don't mind you believing what you do, that is perfectly fine. But unless evidence can be provided, it will never be more than a personal conviction, and to claim that it is anything other than that, is to me to be dishonest. Not saying that you claim to know that it is true, but you must be able to see the issue here.

If you suddenly lost something that was dear to you, you wouldn't just blame one of your friends for having taken it either, unless you had evidence for them actually doing so. That would be highly unreasonable, right?

Yet, jumping to a conclusion about the creation of the Universe, without any evidence is considered rational, to me those things doesn't fit.

And I perfectly understand that some people like Jesus and Muhammad, not really sure why them being famous would add any credibility? but despite that, them being well known or liked, doesn't make what they say true. It is completely irrelevant what type of personality a person have, when it comes to whether they are right or wrong. Jesus and Muhammad might simply have been mistaken or convinced that what they experienced were true, people make mistakes all the time.

We can't reliable get to truth by simply assuming things, or simply trust in others without sufficient evidence.

 

[firedragon]

The examples you provide all hinge on existing linear-causal relationships, so your proposition doesn't appear to provide the solution you claim it does, and your proposal of a metaphysical realm introduces a whole host of new issues of its own.

Think about it and try to give one example of a necessary being because you argued about "if its not contingent". So if its not contingent, its got to be necessary. So please provide an example of a non-contingent being or a necessary being.

Thanks.

 

[KWED]

Magic?
What sort of magic?

You know, miracles and stuff. Creating an entire universe from nothing just by thinking about it.

I think that this physical reality is only real while G-d causes it to be.
real .. as in a very sophisticated illusion. It appeared in a blink of an eye, and can disappear in the blink of an eye.
If you want to call that magic, then yes. But that is not my idea of magic.
It is far too sophisticated.

OK, if it's not "sophisticated magic", what is it?

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.
...
For Spinoza, the universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in the world.

Are you a pantheist now?

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely wrong. The Hellbent Hotel is about infinite new things.

No, it is not. It is simply an illustration of some of the properties of the infinite.

The infinite regress would need a reasoning for the existence of the Hotel, and an explanation for the explanation, infinitely.

No. Each room is 'explained' by the room before it. And since the rooms are all there is, everything is explained.

In the case of the universe, everything in it (well, at least in the argument) is caused, but the universe as a whole is not.

Anyway, can you prove the "first is false" since you said it is known to be?

Quantum fluctuations. They describe electron/positron pairs that form 'out of nothing'. So they are things that 'begin to exist' that do not have a 'cause'.

Thanks.

No problem.

 

[Polymath257]

Please teach logic in a new thread. It will be an interesting thread in-deed. Thanks in advance.

The logic lesson is relevant to the OP: it shows where the OP failed in its goal.

 

[Polymath257]

Think about it and try to give one example of a necessary being because you argued about "if its not contingent". So if its not contingent, its got to be necessary. So please provide an example of a non-contingent being or a necessary being.

Thanks.

I think the breakdown into 'contingent' and 'necessary' is a big part of the problem. Things do NOT 'exist contingently'. They either exist or they do not. There is NO thing whose existence is necessary, not even existence itself.

Now, you *can* talk about things that are caused and things that are uncaused. But not being caused is NOT the same as being necessary. And we *know* of things that 'begin to exist' that are uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

The first cause argument still stands. If something existed before the Big Bang or anything for that matter, it would still need an originator. And again a regression, which has to end with a first cause.

No, it does not. If time goes infinitely into the past (so there is no beginning), there need not be a 'first cause'. No 'originator' is required for the process as a whole, only for the individual steps in the process.

 

[KWED]

Yet to me, truth has clear proofs while falsehood just conjecture. Insights are easy once you get them rolling.

And yet you are completely unable to demonstrate or validate the truth supported by your "clear proofs" to anyone else. Thus they look remarkably like conjecture.
(Yeah yeah, we know, everyone is under dark magic and you are the only one immune to it )

 

[Polymath257]

Please explain how a being is not contingent.

Can you give an example of a necessary being?

The concepts of 'contingent' vs 'necessary' are red herrings. They divide things in ways that are not useful for understanding.

More relevant is to break into 'evidenced' and 'not evidenced'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it does not. If time goes infinitely into the past (so there is no beginning), there need not be a 'first cause'..

That's true.
..but most people believe that the universe has a beginning.
Not many doubt the validity of the big-bang.

 

[leroy]

This argument falls down when someone asks "Where did the "Thing that caused the first cause" come from?

That is a very dumb objection, you don’t need to know where did “X” came from (or what caused “x”) in order to stablish that X is the cause for “Y”.

 

[Altfish]

That is a very dumb objection, you don’t need to know where did “X” came from (or what caused “x”) in order to stablish that X is the cause for “Y”.

Don't agree because that doesn't help. Anyone who is inquisitive will say, "OK, X causes Y... but what caused X?"

 

[KWED]

That is a very dumb objection, you don’t need to know where did “X” came from (or what caused “x”) in order to stablish that X is the cause for “Y”.

Huh?
The argument is that everything needs a cause, but there must be a "first cause". Whatever anyone presents as the "first cause" one simply says, what caused that? Simply claiming "nothing" means that we can do away with that first cause and claim that the next thing up the line requires no cause. The whole house of cards unravels because once you insist that something can exist without a cause, then that can apply to the thing the cause is required to have caused.

 

[firedragon]

The concepts of 'contingent' vs 'necessary' are red herrings.

Okay. that's your contention. Fine.

 

[firedragon]

No, it does not. If time goes infinitely into the past (so there is no beginning)

Thats whole whole argument. If f time goes infinitely into the past (so there is no beginning.

Anyway, since you have concluded that contingent beings and necessary beings are both red herrings I dont think all of this argumentation is needed after that. Your prerogative.

Have a good day.