The first cause argument

[firedragon]

So, let's use the standard you are applying to everybody but yourself: prove to me that it is a logical fact that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". In fact I'll settle for a single, contemporary, reputable source that says that that is a part of logic, not a claim about the physical world.

Who said it is not a "claim about the physical world"? I dont know who said that. If someone did, its not relevant to the OP.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Its deductive reasoning. As I said, unless you believe in magic. Or you can give some evidence that things that exist were uncaused or reasoning. Logical reasoning.

thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

YEah. But without C14, there won't be any decay to even talk about. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

So you are saying that the C14 is the cause of the decay event?

And what about the *time* of that event? Why does one C14 decay now and another decay at a different time?

The decay is certainly something that exists, did not previously exist, and so 'began' to exist, right?

Do you agree that if two systems are identical and causality holds, they should act exactly the same?

You are not following the argument. You are creating a caricature. That is called a strawman.

No, I am directly dealing with the argument as given and disputing the premises that is uses.

 

[Polymath257]

Who said it is not a "claim about the physical world"? I dont know who said that. If someone did, its not relevant to the OP.

You are making a claim about causes. That is a claim about the physical world. NOT only a logical claim.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Prove it.

Its deductive reasoning.

From what premises?

As I said, unless you believe in magic. Or you can give some evidence that things that exist were uncaused or reasoning. Logical reasoning.

I have given links and others have as well. You have ignored those links.

I even gave a paper in a philosophical journal noting that the current evidence says it is reasonable to believe the universe began to exist but was uncaused.

 

[firedragon]

So you are saying that the C14 is the cause of the decay event?

This reminds of that Cathey Newman interview of Jordan Peterson. "So are you saying what you are not actually saying"?

If you go back, read what I say, you will see that I have said this maybe half a dozen times. C14 had a cause. You gave that cause already. Everything that begins to exist had a cause. Thats the a

If you really want I can repeat it. No problem. But try not to create a caricature.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who said it is not a "claim about the physical world"?

You did: "Its simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause." (#332). You seem to be confused about the relationship between science and logic. A claim about the physical world is a scientific claim, you can't justify such statements from logic alone.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Its deductive reasoning.

So where's the deduction? What are the premises? What are the deductive steps?

Or you can give some evidence that things that exist were uncaused or reasoning. Logical reasoning.

You've already been given lots of evidence (Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia), you just keep on dismissing it because you are holding everybody up the standard of absolute proof, whereas you seem to expect everybody else to simply believe what you say unless they have absolute proof of the opposite.

 

[firedragon]

I even gave a paper in a philosophical journal noting that the current evidence says it is reasonable to believe the universe began to exist but was uncaused.

Not fact. You can give a million papers with a million hypotheses and theories. But you cannot one single paper that says its fact. Of course you will ignore this every single time.

 

[firedragon]

You did: "Its simple logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause." (#332). You seem to be confused about the relationship between science and logic. A claim about the physical world is a scientific claim, you can't justify such statements from logic alone.

You said I claimed "this is not about the physical world" and now you have said something completely differently when I said I didnt, but you say "you did". Lol. Really strange.

IN which philosophy does it say that any claim about the physical world is a scientific claim and not a philosophical claim? In which world?

How about the philosophy of science? Does it speak about the physical world? Does it outline reason and reasoning?

You've already been given lots of evidence

Theories. Not facts. Science does not work towards facts.

I can repeat that for the 10th time if you want. No problem. Just say it, I will cut and paste this same sentence.

 

[Polymath257]

This reminds of that Cathey Newman interview of Jordan Peterson. "So are you saying what you are not actually saying"?

If you go back, read what I say, you will see that I have said this maybe half a dozen times. C14 had a cause. You gave that cause already. Everything that begins to exist had a cause. Thats the a

If you really want I can repeat it. No problem. But try not to create a caricature.

Yes, the C14 itself had a cause.

The time of the decay is NOT caused.

And quantum fluctuations: electron-positron pair production is a beginning without a cause.

 

[Polymath257]

Not fact. You can give a million papers with a million hypotheses and theories. But you cannot one single paper that says its fact. Of course you will ignore this every single time.

And with that, you need to substantiate *your* theories. We have pointed out where your premises are in dispute by relevant investigators.

So they are NOT logical necessities.

if you want to prove your case, you need to say more than that they are simple logic. Because the evidence from multiple sources is that this is not the case.

Scholarly articles don't use the language you want (uncaused, fact). So you reject those articles even though they have direct relevance to your argument.

YOU are the one that needs to show that your premises are valid. We have pointed out good reasons for thinking they are not.

Your turn.

 

[firedragon]

And with that, you need to substantiate *your* theories.

Its not a theory. Its a philosophical argument for a first cause.

Maybe if you read the OP again, it would help.

Anything that begins to exist had a cause. Please read the OP.

Thanks.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The decay time of a nucleus does not [have a cause].

How does that apply to the first cause argument:
P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.

Is the decay time of a nucleus a "being" ?

 

[ratiocinator]

You said I claimed "this is not about the physical world" and now you have said something completely differently when I said I didnt, but you say "you did".

As I said (and you ignored), saying it's "simple logic" would mean that it was independent of assumptions about the physical world. Simple logic would be statements like: P or Q, not Q, therefore P.

How about the philosophy of science? Does it speak about the physical world?

The philosophy of science is about how science works, it makes no direct claims about scientific conclusions.

Theories. Not facts. Science does not work towards facts.

No, but it does provide evidence and logically self-consistent theories that are alternatives to your claim, thus absolutely proving that your claim is not a purely logical one.

You also claimed that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." was "deductive reasoning" but you totally ignored the request that you provide the actual deduction and its premises.

 

[firedragon]

Because the evidence from multiple sources is that this is not the case.

You have not provided any evidence. You have only provided some theories, hypothesis, about some events taking place maybe in a vacuum, virtual particles etc etc and you speak of them as fact which is a contradiction with science itself. And you cannot understand that what happens inside a vacuum does not negate the fact that a vacuum exists, and that is because there was a cause. Is it gravity? Then what caused gravity? Is it space time? What caused mass?

You can ignore it again and focus on what happens inside a vacuum.

The coin had a cause. But you will focus on an event. In fact, if this is said 30 or 40 times, you will still not address it.

So, thanks for engaging. I shall withdraw from this discussion. Cheers.

 

[We Never Know]

Its all above my head but here's what I get out of it....

Big bang and skip ahead...

The cause of a C14 nucleus is by reactions of cosmic rays with N14 nucleoli(which both have a cause)

An atom(which has a cause) that has excess of either neutrons or protons(which both have a cause) causes the nucleus to become unstable which then causes the probability of decay but since the time isn't predictable, decay is uncaused.


My head hurts now. Continue on. I enjoy reading everyone's post and I think from now on I will do just that. Be silent and read.

 

[firedragon]

As I said (and you ignored), saying it's "simple logic" would mean that it was independent of assumptions about the physical world. Simple logic would be statements like: P or Q, not Q, therefore P.

So please read the OP.

The philosophy of science is about how science works, it makes no direct claims about scientific conclusions.

Yeah. But as you said, since philosophy and/or logic/reasoning is not about the physical world, why is it called philosophy? And why does it have logic and reasoning?

You made an absolutely bogus claim that logic cannot address the physical world. Non sensical.

All cars are manufactured.
I drive a car.
So what I drive was manufactured.

Thats simple logic, addressing the physical world. Unless you think I drive a supernatural cherub.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

I understand that an electromagnetic field is responsible.

 

[firedragon]

Its all above my head but here's what I get out of it....

Big bang and skip ahead...

The cause of a C14 nucleus is by reactions of cosmic rays with N14 nucleoli(which both have a cause)

An atom(which has a cause) that has excess of either neutrons or protons(which both have a cause) causes the nucleus to become unstable which then causes the probability of decay but since the time isn't predictable, decay is uncaused.


My head hurts now. Continue on. I enjoy reading everyone's post and I think from now on I will do just that. Be silent and read.

This is not really a scientific theory or anything of the sort. But when someone tries to bring scientific theories as fact, they should know that science does not work towards facts. Einsteins theory of general relativity is not considered fact. It is a theory. That does not negate it, it is just the way science works.

When two atoms combine, something new is created. But this new thing, what ever it is, has to have had the previous substance as a part. This is fundamental philosophy. That is why a contingent being can exist in other ways or forms. That is the definition of a contingent being. And its contingent upon something else.

IF N14 was the cause of C14, N14 also has a cause. And it goes back. Because it all goes back to a beginning, that beginning has to have a cause. That is the first cause. This is a philosophical argument. Science cannot prove it wrong or right. Maybe one day they will change the definition of science. That day, lets see how that works out.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah. But as you said, since philosophy and/or logic/reasoning is not about the physical world, why is it called philosophy? And why does it have logic and reasoning?

I did not say that logic and reasoning cannot be about the real word, I said that you can't make claims about the real world using logic alone. You need premises that are derived from the real world.

All cars are manufactured.
I drive a car.
So what I drive was manufactured.

Indeed, but you have two premises there that are statements about empirical observations of the real world, namely, that all cars are manufactured and that you drive a car. If I had evidence that either one was wrong (for example, that you don't drive), it would be an unsound argument despite is logical validity.

And you still haven't given the deduction you claimed for the statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

 

[firedragon]

I did not say that logic and reasoning cannot be about the real word, I said that you can't make claims about the real world using logic alone. You need premises that are derived from the real world.


Indeed, but you have two premises there that are statements about empirical observations of the real world, namely, that all cars are manufactured and that you drive a car. If I had evidence that either one was wrong (for example, that you don't drive), it would be an unsound argument despite is logical validity.

And you still haven't given the deduction you claimed for the statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

Gonna have tea. Maybe this might be of little help.

This is not really a scientific theory or anything of the sort. But when someone tries to bring scientific theories as fact, they should know that science does not work towards facts. Einsteins theory of general relativity is not considered fact. It is a theory. That does not negate it, it is just the way science works.

When two atoms combine, something new is created. But this new thing, what ever it is, has to have had the previous substance as a part. This is fundamental philosophy. That is why a contingent being can exist in other ways or forms. That is the definition of a contingent being. And its contingent upon something else.

IF N14 was the cause of C14, N14 also has a cause. And it goes back. Because it all goes back to a beginning, that beginning has to have a cause. That is the first cause. This is a philosophical argument. Science cannot prove it wrong or right. Maybe one day they will change the definition of science. That day, lets see how that works out.

 

[Polymath257]

Its not a theory. Its a philosophical argument for a first cause.

Maybe if you read the OP again, it would help.

Anything that begins to exist had a cause. Please read the OP.

Thanks.

yes, it is a philosophical argument where the premises are in dispute.

I read the OP. It didn't sufficiently deal with establishing the premises.

In particular, it merely assumed that there cannot be an infinite regress AND is merely assumed that everything that begins has a cause.

Those are claims that need to be validated. Objections have been raised that suggest they may be false.

We do not have to *prove* they are false. There is reasonable suspicion that they are false.

YOU need to *prove* they are true in order to make your argument succeed.