The first cause argument

[firedragon]

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.

Maybe because you have not understood it. So you are repeating it.

But there is no point when someone calls it red herring without understanding it, and you didnt even know what a being is.

 

[firedragon]

I already said above: electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations.

Uncaused? Existed eternally? Proven fact?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe because you have not understood it. So you are repeating it.

But there is no point when someone calls it red herring without understanding it, and you didnt even know what a being is.

I didn't know what *your* definition of the concept is. There is more than one out there.

 

[Polymath257]

Uncaused? Existed eternally? Proven fact?

Yes, uncaused. No, the pairs are not eternal.

But the universe *may* be eternal. We simply do not know. But your argument ignores that logical possibility.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, uncaused. No, the pairs are not eternal.

Uncaused, but not eternal. You mean it came out of nothing right? Is that proven fact?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe because you have not understood it. So you are repeating it.

Well, then, by all means explain my errors.

But there is no point when someone calls it red herring without understanding it, and you didnt even know what a being is.

I think that it is a basic philosophical mistake to divide things into 'contingent' and 'necessary'. It is a remnant of classical philosophy that isn't justified given what we know about the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Uncaused, but not eternal. You mean it came out of nothing right? Is that proven fact?

Yes. The pairs come out of a vacuum. In fact, it is one of the properties of the vacuum that such pairs spontaneously and randomly form.

It's proven as well as most things in science (which never gives absolute proofs--but neither does philosophy).

But the fact remains that 'uncaused things that begin' is not a logical contradiction and is actually indicated by modern science.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. The pairs come out of a vacuum. In fact, it is one of the properties of the vacuum that such pairs spontaneously and randomly form.

It's proven as well as most things in science (which never gives absolute proofs--but neither does philosophy).

But the fact remains that 'uncaused things that begin' is not a logical contradiction and is actually indicated by modern science.

I know you want to bring science into this discussion.

Can you just make your direct claim that electron-positron pairs in quantum fluctuations came from nothing, uncaused, not eternal, and its "proven fact"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anything in time cannot be eternal.

Anything outside of time cannot be eternal.

"Eternal" means "existing at all points in time," effectively. Anything that isn't in time at all can't exist at all points in time.

 

[blü 2]

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.

First, at every millisecond right across the known universe, countless events occur that are uncaused in classical terms. It's not true to say that the universe is made up of strict sequences of causation in the classical sense.

Second, if indeed there was a first cause, what quality distinguishes it from the Big Bang? Describing the Big Bang has its problems, but all the evidence shows that it occurred. Is God therefore a colossal physical phenomenon with no sentience or purpose or meaning? Because that's what the Big Bang is.

Third, the Argument from Design began to fail at the end of the 18th, and was dead by the latter part of the 19th, century. Nonetheless, if a sentient entity could somehow be argued, for, what real entity ─ entity that is not imaginary, but can be found in the world external to the self ─ is meant to be denoted by the word 'God'? What did God have in mind when it engineered the Big Bang? How do you know?

 

[firedragon]

First, at every millisecond right across the known universe, countless events occur that are uncaused in classical terms.

Please give an example and how it is known as a fact to be uncaused.

Second, if indeed there was a first cause, what quality distinguishes it from the Big Bang?

If the Big Bang was the origination of the universe, the first cause caused it.

Third, the Argument from Design began to fail at the end of the 18th, and was dead by the latter part of the 19th

Yeah. This is not the argument from design.

 

[blü 2]

Please give an example and how it is known as a fact to be uncaused."

I said, 'uncaused in classical terms'. At the subatomic level, substitute statistical analysis. Examples are the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, and the subatomic events giving rise to the Casimir effect.

If the Big Bang was the origination of the universe, the first cause caused it.

Depends what 'temporal sequence' could have meant at Time Zero, no?

Yeah. This is not the argument from design.

The Cosmo / Kalam arguments are presented as 'proof' by necessity that God exists ─ I don't recall seeing them in any other context. And the demonstration of that necessity was the Argument from Design. As I said, that argument isn't available any more.

 

[rational experiences]

If the mind says I know then in science of man just theoried first...conscious of... reactive conversions to gain energy the human mind knew.

So if we prove we knew then if we quote the eternal it is because we knew.

Always was always had been always still is.

Then you would ask how did it change.

As there is no need to ask where it came from as then the term eternal would own no meaning.

The answer change was by God O. It's release.

Hence as a spiritual learning human I applied some basic questions. Gained correct answers to a status about information I had never personally theoried...answered..understood...or studied.

I also asked if I died and creation owned most of my body type presence...biology as water mass existed first. Oxygenation of the mass existed first. Microbes existed first. Nature and animals before me.

I asked what did I have left after and how did it go somewhere else.

The eternal was the answer. Having been Cut off spiritually from it. A higher being can enter a lowered state but cannot return.

We still Owned a communicated body separated from. I Still owned my highest self.

The being of which I am in the image of first. A body type. The storyteller.

Knowing water atmosphere is taken above us in nuclear recording causes evaporation cooling. Reactive status.

Knowing I have seen spirit talking so knew it real. But I knew I was higher than all things consciously.

Had spiritual causes to support what I learnt.

Hence O God bodies left the eternal. So God was the changed loss.

The eternal still existed but owned body change.

Which made sense why man.said space acted like a womb holding its god babies.

Why he said our mother came out of spirit after him. Placing her consciously higher advised. Female the Nurturers. A human but a changed body human.

And why he became a man's god record in eArths heavens due to science.

It was easily accepted as it is pretty basic advice.

I don't have to argue. As arguing is being dis spirited even when you claim spirituality.

The eternal is just common sense.

 

[rational experiences]

And like body types living on earth space owns multi body types also.

Which would place first form to be the same substance but a different sound in each body.

Making it a type.

 

[firedragon]

I said, 'uncaused in classical terms'. At the subatomic level, substitute statistical analysis. Examples are the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, and the subatomic events giving rise to the Casimir effect.

Please provide the evidence that it is proven this as a fact is uncaused

Depends what 'temporal sequence' could have meant at Time Zero, no?

What ever it is, the first cause is the cause.

The Cosmo / Kalam arguments are presented as 'proof' by necessity that God exists

Yeah but if you read the OP, though many are love with God, it is a separate argument.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

in my opinion everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe as a whole has a cause.

If a supernatural god can exist outside of time/space does it require a cause?

 

[firedragon]

in my opinion everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe as a whole has a cause.

If a supernatural god can exist outside of time/space does it require a cause?

Its like this brother. This word God can get a lot of the contributors in this thread so excited in some of of their meme type responses. You know this which god, this god, zeus, and all of that. Thats a whole different argument.

As I have already explained in the OP this thread was opened due to a request, and is only focusing on the first cause argument. Thats it.

Hope you understand.

 

[blü 2]

Please provide the evidence that it is proven this as a fact is uncaused

It's uncaused in the classical sense ie you can't predict its individual events by applying pre-quantum methods to it, this therefore this therefore this &c. Instead you have statistical observations about states of affairs, not about individual sub-particles. This was the center of a classical debate between Einstein and his coworkers Podolsky and Rosen ("EPR") and the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation, which has been taken to be resolved in favor of the latter by Bell's >theorem<.

What ever it is, the first cause is the cause.

Really? What definition of cause are you using?

Yeah but if you read the OP, though many are love with God, it is a separate argument.

We don't appear to disagree then.

 

[firedragon]

It's uncaused in the classical sense ie you can't predict its individual events by applying pre-quantum methods to it, this therefore this therefore this &c. Instead you have statistical observations about states of affairs, not about individual sub-particles. This was the center of a classical debate between Einstein and his coworkers Podolsky and Rosen ("EPR") and the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation, which has been taken to be resolved in favor of the latter by Bell's >theorem<.

Its not uncaused.

 

[blü 2]

Its not uncaused.

It's uncaused in the classical sense, as I've said all along. And the argument assumes the classical sense.

Which won't work for the Big Bang, so I enquire what definition of 'cause' you're using there.