• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The first cause argument

firedragon

Veteran Member
Things do NOT 'exist contingently

I dont know who says "contingently".

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.

You have not understood these things. that's why you have spoken of caused, uncaused, but not contingent and necessary etc etc. That was a surprise.

You come to conclusions like "red herrings" to well known philosophical terms, but with out understanding them. Well, that ends that discussion. Ciao.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

The first cause argument is simply a logical premise by premise argument.

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

This is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Peace.
This argument assumes what it is trying to prove and that is that the universe has a first cause. By logic the so called first cause could just as well be contingent on there being an infinite regress of causes that caused the 'first' cause.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
This argument assumes what it is trying to prove and that is that the universe has a first cause.

What is the other option that does not get into an infinite regression? Does not everything that begins to exist by default have a cause?

By logic the so called first cause could just as well be contingent on there being an infinite regress of causes that caused the universe to expand.

Its not logical for a first cause to have another first cause. First cause is first cause. Thats a contradiction.

If you get into an infinity back in time with infinite regression, it never ends right? So do you really think an infinity can exist? Can you demonstrate an infinity?
 

lukethethird

unknown member
What is the other option that does not get into an infinite regression? Does not everything that begins to exist by default have a cause?



Its not logical for a first cause to have another first cause. First cause is first cause. Thats a contradiction.

If you get into an infinity back in time with infinite regression, it never ends right? So do you really think an infinity can exist? Can you demonstrate an infinity?
Do you really think a first cause can exist?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That's true.
..but most people believe that the universe has a beginning.
Not many doubt the validity of the big-bang.

Physicists are well aware that general relativity is incomplete. They are also aware that quantum additions tend to eliminate the singularity and allow for an infinite past.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thats whole whole argument. If f time goes infinitely into the past (so there is no beginning.{QUOTE]

Yes, and you have not shown that is not the case.

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.

So you don't want to argue the validity of your claims? Giving up so soon?

Have a good day.
Always.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What is the other option that does not get into an infinite regression? Does not everything that begins to exist by default have a cause?

What's wrong with an infinite regression?

And the answer is NO-there are things that begin to exist that are uncaused.

Its not logical for a first cause to have another first cause. First cause is first cause. Thats a contradiction.
And it is a contradiction to the notion of a first cause.

If you get into an infinity back in time with infinite regression, it never ends right? So do you really think an infinity can exist? Can you demonstrate an infinity?

Yes, I think it can exist. It isn't proven, but it is a distinct *logical* possibility.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Proof of what? Of a first cause?

What do you mean by "proof"? Anyway, I cannot understand what any of this would go to after your red herring argument.

Well, you could justify your claim that everything is either contingent or necessary. Since you then confound contingent with caused for your argument, that is an issue.

The negation of 'caused' is NOT 'necessary'. So when you identify contingent with caused, you make a logical error.
 
Top