The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

Then THIS is the red herring.

No, it shows the *logical possibility* of an uncaused cause that is non-eternal.

And that logical possibility is enough to destroy your argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Ha!
Anything else?

Most quantum events are uncaused. They are random and not determined by any previous events.

 

[firedragon]

No, it shows the *logical possibility* of an uncaused cause that is non-eternal.

And that logical possibility is enough to destroy your argument.

Logical possibility? Who said a logical possibility destroys arguments? When did science prove logical possibilities? Can you show the paper for that? Logical possibility, and how that debunks this argument?

 

[Polymath257]

The atheists who engage heavily in this kind of thread are prone to use ad hominem. That seems like an ultimate goal. Not all of course, but most.

What you dont understand is that you are repeating the main argument of the OP and confirming it repeatedly. It is not debunking the OP, but confirming it. Only if you yourself understand it will it be fruitful. If not, it will just be another rhetorical response with some ad hominem. Its a usual case now. So, I dont know who you are to tell me my usual tactics, but I can tell you that I expect another ad hominem as the last say from you as I do from many others. Its pretty normal.

Thanks.

The logical possibility of an eternal regress debunks your argument.

The logical possibility of an uncaused noneternal cause debunks your argument.

You have dealt with neither of those possibilities in any way other than claiming, without proof, that they cannot happen.

You need to prove that they cannot happen for your argument to go through.

 

[firedragon]

Most quantum events are uncaused. They are random and not determined by any previous events.

Can you provide a paper that says this is fact?

 

[firedragon]

The logical possibility of an eternal regress debunks your argument.

How could something that is not eternal create a possibility of an eternal regress?

 

[Polymath257]

Logical possibility? Who said a logical possibility destroys arguments? When did science prove logical possibilities? Can you show the paper for that? Logical possibility, and how that debunks this argument?

You are making a logical, philosophical argument. Showing where that argument can fail with other logical possibilities shows the argument is incomplete. THAT is basic logic.

If you have not dealt with those logical possibilities, your philosophical argument fails.

You have asked me to provide examples of each, but that is not where the burden of proof lies: you need to show they *cannot* happen. And I have given reasonable situations where both fail.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you provide a paper that says this is fact?

How about textbooks?

 

[firedragon]

You are making a logical, philosophical argument.

Yes. So make a philosophical argument.

 

[Polymath257]

How could something that is not eternal create a possibility of an eternal regress?

Two *different* points of failure of your argument.

ONE: that an infinite regress is a possibility.

TWO: that there can be uncaused non-eternal events.

Of he two, the second is known to be the case from quantum physics.

The first is NOT *known* to be the case, but remains a possibility.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. So make a philosophical argument.

I did. I noted that neither an infinite regress nor an uncaused cause that is non-eternal are contradictory. Your argument relies on *both* of them being contradictory.

You claim both are contradictory, but have failed to give any contradiction to either.

 

[firedragon]

How about textbooks?

No problem. I will read. I would like to see which science textbook proves something as fact. It is against basics of science, so this is pretty strange to me.

 

[firedragon]

ONE: that an infinite regress is a possibility.

See, you never proved anything. Make a philosophical argument that infinite regression exists.

Yet I think you never will. So I withdraw from this conversation.

Cheers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Most quantum events are uncaused. They are random and not determined by any previous events.

I don't see the point in arguing about whether particles behave in a random fashion or not.

A beam of light that is composed of photons happens when you turn on the torch. It doesn't happen when the torch is switched off.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see the point in arguing about whether particles behave in a random fashion or not.

A beam of light that is composed of photons happens when you turn on the torch. It doesn't happen when the torch is switched off.

Yes, in that case, there is causality in the large.

But if you have a radioactive nucleus, there is NOTHING that determines when it will decay. Identical nuclei that are isolated will still decay at different times.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, the definition of 'cause' that I use says that it is something prior to the event that determines what happens in the event.

Is that an acceptable definition of 'cause' for right now?

If so, then let's look at radioactive decay. A radioactive nucleus has a *probability* of decaying in any given time interval. But the nucleus that decays in one minute is *identical* to a nucleus that doesn't decay for a year.

By both theory and observation, there is NO different between those two nuclei. Hence, the time of the decay (the event of the decay itself) is uncaused.

And, in fact, most quantum level events are of this type: there are probabilities of what *might* happen, but what *specifically* happens is undetermined prior to the event itself. By the definition above, those events are uncaused.

If I may jump in and ask a question..
Why does a nucleus become unstable and decay. If we know why, wouldn't that be the cause?

 

[Polymath257]

If I may jump in and ask a question..
Why does a nucleous become unstable and decay. If we know why, wouldn't that be the cause?

It is unstable because of the number of protons and neutrons in it. But that does NOT determine *when* it decays. it simply determines a *probability* of decay.

There is NOTHING that causes the *event* of decay: nothing that happens prior that determines *when* the decay will happen.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

There is NOTHING that causes the *event* of decay: nothing that happens prior that determines *when* the decay will happen.

Is there a reason for this thing to happen in our world?

 

[We Never Know]

It is unstable because of the number of protons and neutrons in it. But that does NOT determine *when* it decays. it simply determines a *probability* of decay.

There is NOTHING that causes the *event* of decay: nothing that happens prior that determines *when* the decay will happen.

So extra neutrons or protons in the atom creates extra energy in the nucleus and causes the atom to become unbalanced or unstable, hence probability of decay.
Aren't the extra neutrons or protons the cause but we just don't know when?
I don't fully understand why not knowing when makes it uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

Is there a reason for this thing to happen in our world?

What do you mean exactly?

Is there a reason that the nucleus has a probability of decay? Yes.

Is there a reason it decays at one time and not another? No.