The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

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

Now you're shifting the burden of proof. It's you who started out making a supposed philosophical argument, if your premises are not accepted because there are clear logical alternatives, and even well supported science, that contradict them, then you have failed to prove anything. It's not up to other people to prove the opposite. If your premises are not definitely true, then the argument is unsound.

 

[Polymath257]

But the coin had a cause.

The decay time of a nucleus does not.

 

[firedragon]

And now the thread has reached full circle. It has been an amazing social experiment of colossal misunderstanding, dodging, and so on, when the argument is simple. Amazing, entertaining, and most importantly educational.

Ah. You are absolutely right.

Ill tell you something. There was one guy here in this forum some number of years ago. Because of one post by someone else, he did his Phd taking that as his research topic.

 

[firedragon]

if your premises are not accepted because there are clear logical alternatives

What is this logical alternative? Dont repeat the same thing which is not proven fact. But provide the philosophical argument.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

The decay time of a nucleus does not.

Can you provide the science paper that says "It is a fact"?

You will never find one. Never in your life.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

So did the flip

Yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Everything has a cause

Well, that is a claim.

But, precisely what do you mean by the phrase 'has a cause'?

Give a definition and we can see if nuclear decay fits or not.

If you are concerned about nuclei being complex systems, we can also discuss the decay of muons, which are fundamental particles with no internal structure.

This talk about random, quantum uncertainty reminds me of Schrödinger's cat

Well, the cat is a paradox of quantum mechanics. We are talking right now about well documented, observed phenomena with a solid theory describing them that has been tested many times over the last century. And that theory describes nuclear decay as *random*.

 

[Polymath257]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Again, that is a claim. What *proof* of this claim do you offer?

In opposition, I can point to a number of events that are uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

What is this logical alternative? Dont repeat the same thing which is not proven fact. But provide the philosophical argument.

Thanks.

they don't need to be proven facts to be logical alternatives. YOU have to show they *cannot* happen in order for your argument to be valid.

And we have very good reasons to think those assumptions are false. Proofs? No. But very good reasons. You have to provide proofs those reasons don't hold water.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you provide the science paper that says "It is a fact"?

You will never find one. Never in your life.

Cheers.

Absolutely. That the time of decay is random and not determined by previous events? That is common.

Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed.[2][3][4] However, for a significant number of identical atoms, the overall decay rate can be expressed as a decay constant or as half-life. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have a huge range; from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe."

"The mathematics of radioactive decay depend on a key assumption that a nucleus of a radionuclide has no "memory" or way of translating its history into its present behavior. A nucleus does not "age" with the passage of time. Thus, the probability of its breaking down does not increase with time but stays constant, no matter how long the nucleus has existed. This constant probability may differ greatly between one type of nucleus and another, leading to the many different observed decay rates. However, whatever the probability is, it does not change over time."

 

[ratiocinator]

What is this logical alternative? Dont repeat the same thing which is not proven fact. But provide the philosophical argument.

Why just ignore what I've said? You put forward an argument whose premises are both logically and scientifically highly questionable. It's your burden of proof. It's up to you to show that "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning." despite the good evidence for uncaused events that has been presented, and to show that "The universe has a beginning." despite the possibility that it didn't, and that even if time is finite in the past, that doesn't mean it had a beginning in the sense needed for the first premiss to apply.

All this has been explained to you, with references, and it appears you have no answers but attempting to shift the burden of proof (a logical fallacy).

Unless you can logically justify your premises, your deduction fails. It really is that simple.

 

[firedragon]

Again, that is a claim. What *proof* of this claim do you offer?

In opposition, I can point to a number of events that are uncaused.

Its simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You cannot give a single thing in the whole universe no matter how many times you repeat it, that is uncaused, proven as fact. All you can ever give is a theory.

What you are doing is going against science itself by trying to make them fact. You know it. I have seen this argument by apologists for atheism, but they intentionally misuse science and misinform people that "this is fact". But that's against science itself.

 

[firedragon]

Absolutely. That the time of decay is random and not determined by previous events? That is common.

Is it a proven fact of science? Lets say it is "random", what is decaying? What caused the thing that is decaying? If its c14, what caused C14? Are you saying C14 magically appeared at some point in history with no cause whatsoever? Do you really believe in magic?

You are avoiding this because you know that you are going against science.

 

[Polymath257]

Its simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You keep claiming that, but still have not proven it. it is certainly NOT a logical principle, being about causality.

You cannot give a single thing in the whole universe no matter how many times you repeat it, that is uncaused, proven as fact. All you can ever give is a theory.

And you cannot give a proof that everything that begins *is* caused.

But what i can give is a predictive, testable theory that has passed every test over the last century and that describes quantum level events as random in essence.

What you are doing is going against science itself by trying to make them fact. You know it. I have seen this argument by apologists for atheism, but they intentionally misuse science and misinform people that "this is fact". But that's against science itself.

If there are scientific facts at all (which you may dispute, I guess), then the randomness of quantum events is a scientific fact. The randomness of nuclear decay is a scientific fact.

This is *NOT* misinformation. it is, in fact, basic quantum mechanics.

 

[firedragon]

Why just ignore what I've said? You put forward an argument whose premises are both logically and scientifically highly questionable.

Why is it questionable? When you say these things like questionable, you have to show why.

It's up to you to show that "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning."

Because if something pops out of nothing, either it is magic, or it was caused.

Unless you do believe in magic.

 

[Polymath257]

Is it a proven fact of science? Lets say it is "random", what is decaying?

C14 is decaying.

What caused the thing that is decaying?

Be precise. The fact that it will decay is a result of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus.

The C14 nucleus itself is produced by reactions of cosmic rays with N14 nuclei.

The *time* of the decay isn't determined by anything previous to the decay.

If its c14, what caused C14? Are you saying C14 magically appeared at some point in history with no cause whatsoever? Do you really believe in magic?

C14 is produced from N14 by cosmic rays.

So? Does that mean the time of the decay is caused? No.

You are avoiding this because you know that you are going against science.

No, I am not. Everything I have said is precisely true given the science.

 

[firedragon]

You keep claiming that, but still have not proven it. it is certainly NOT a logical principle, being about causality.

You mean its not a logical principle? Okay. So tell me what logical principles do you follow?

then the randomness of quantum events is a scientific fact.

Lol. Lets say I give you this as fact. (as an example).

Where is this quantum event happening? Lets say tossing a coin. Can it happen without the coin?

 

[firedragon]

C14 is produced from N14 by cosmic rays.

So what caused the N14?

 

[Polymath257]

Why is it questionable? When you say these things like questionable, you have to show why.

We have, repeatedly.

Because if something pops out of nothing, either it is magic, or it was caused.

Well, that shows your bias in this.

Electron-positron pairs *pop out of nothing* and their appearances have measurable effects. The Casimir effect was predicted based on this *random* popping into existence.

Unless you do believe in magic.

Nope. Magic and physical laws allowing for uncaused events are different things.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean its not a logical principle? Okay. So tell me what logical principles do you follow?

Logic is limited to propositional logic (negation, implication, and, or, logical equivalence) and quantifier logic (statements about everything being the case or the existence of something being the case).

To say anything about the real world means you *have* to go beyond logic and have observation. That is science.

In particular, the question about when and how causality makes sense is a *scientific* question and NOT a logical one.

Lol. Lets say I give you this as fact. (as an example).

Where is this quantum event happening? Lets say tossing a coin. Can it happen without the coin?

Electron-positron pair production happens in a vacuum. There is literally nothing prior to it.