The first cause argument

[osgart]

Depends what sort of thing you're talking about. There's no contradiction in an infinite past, for example.


An infinite past wouldn't have a start.

So then something about existence has to be eternal to have an infinite past. And that could be a lot of things. God is a filler for that unknown.

 

[ratiocinator]

So then something about existence has to be eternal...

No, it's just a possibility.

 

[osgart]

No, it's just a possibility.

The other possibility is something from nothing.

 

[SA Huguenot]

But actually, the argument (even if we accepted it fully) doesn't argue for a first cause, just a cause for the universe. There is nothing there that prevents an infinite regress beyond that cause (special pleading aside).


Then what's the justification for either premiss?

I like all the thinking on this thread.

And I have been reading for years on what scientists conclude on the beginning of the Universe.
And what religious dogma says about it.
And yes, taking the "God did it" explanation out of the equation, this is how it is described.

Everything began with a singularity, that due to a very small fluctuation in its existance, resulted into a Big bang.

From a nice summary on Wikipaedia:
Singularity (system theory), in dynamical and social systems, a context in which a small change can cause a large effect
Gravitational singularity, in general relativity, a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill defined
Initial singularity, a hypothesized singularity of infinite density before quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang and subsequent inflation that created the Universe
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, in general relativity theory, theorems about how gravitation produces singularities such as in black holes
...
Anyhow, science is in general terms in agreement that the Universe, planets, stars and everything inbetween is the result of huge ammounts of energy contained in a infinitely small space area, errupted to create the very particles atoms are made off.
This created different metals, after huge stars exploded to produce heavier elements, particles, solarsystems, and eventually life.
...and so on.

Now, we can postulate and debate about how this came about, and learn from Stephen Hawking's Great design" that Gravitational fields created this singularity of ennergy, and a Creator is not needed for Creation.
We can name it, and give it descriptive mumble jumble such as the "First cause" and philosiphy about where this Cause came from, and on what this Cause had an effect on to get the Universe4 going, but we will not be able to get an answer on what the first cause is. Neither will we be able to determine if the first cause working on some singularity that actually consisted of some form of Energy, and how this changed into solid matter.

We know how to change Matter into Energy, but to change Energy into matter is something I assume, to be impossible.
Now lets look at the possible Cause of everything.

If Hawking said it was "Gravitational fields", we can again use our mumbo jumbo "What was the cause of Gravity?
And Hawkin could not explain that.

What scientists are doing to explain away any idea of a Creator, is to ask, "If there are a Creator, what was his first cause".

Therefore, the religious person and the Atheistic person are in a duel fight asking each other..
What caused your first cause.

From my viewpoint, I "believe" in the Creator of the Universe, rather than a "component" of the Universe (gravity).
The reason be that I will rather worship a Creator who described how He made everything, than in say, the Sun, Moon, Stars, any Greek or Egyptian god, for they are all created entities.

I will never give credit for the creation to something such as "Gravity", for such a recognition is blatant Idolatory.

Even when I were still of mind that there are no god, I still did not like to consciensely name a BB, or Gravity the cause of everything.

 

[PureX]

This argument falls down when someone asks "Where did the "Thing that caused the first cause" come from?

The proposition does not "fall apart" just because we cannot define that first cause. By definition it would have no causation. Or it wouldn't be 'first'. And presuming infinite regression is even less logical than simply not knowing the nature of that first cause.

 

[exchemist]

Depends what sort of thing you're talking about. There's no contradiction in an infinite past, for example.


An infinite past wouldn't have a start.

I suppose it wouldn't be a "regress" either, strictly speaking, just a continuum.

I should have thought a "regress" implies some form of chain of succession, of instances of something, with each having a logical dependence on the previous one.

 

[firedragon]

It seems trivially obvious that something that is "originated" has an originating cause. The word "originated" is in the passive voice and thus implicitly assumes that something active did the originating. So this looks like a question-begging argument to me.

Surely the point is whether or not one can assume that everything was actively originated. That seems to me rather questionable.

Okay. Change the word. Focus on the concept.

Muthakil al wujud.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

It isn't.
Causality is a phenomenon of the physics in universe. And not even a universal one at that, as it gets very shaky at the quantum level.

In P2, the arguments invokes a phenomenon of the universe in a context where there is no universe.
This makes P2 invalid.

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.

The problem these philosophers of old had, is that in their time they were ignorant about what causality is all about and how it requires space-time to manifest. So they had no clue that invoking it in a context where no space-time exists, is invalid.

But we know better today.
Or at least, some of us do.

 

[firedragon]

It is an infinite regression, like the infinite hotel, there is always another you can go to.

It is absolutely not like the infinite hotel.

"First Cause. Cannot logically have another cause" is called special pleading aka it stops when I cannot insert my god..

This is not an argument for God. Explained already in the OP.

Also, "no true scotsman fallacy".

I make it a lot simpler, I stop at The Big Bang and if asked about what was before, I do not invoke an invented god, I truthfully say, "I don't know" - I'm very happy with that.

This is not a science experiment. This is a philosophical argument. And if you read the OP you would realise, said again, this is not argument for God. That is a different argument. Another step. Its irrelevant to this thread. Funny an atheist is obsessed with God. Not internet memes, honest analysis. Try it. Try to address the argument.

Cheers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The argument is about the first cause, if you are talking about "another cause that caused the first cause", that is a collapse of logic. Are you talking about a 0 cause?

First Cause. Cannot logically have another cause. If you read the OP, you will see the infinite regression, which is what you will get into. But still, you cannot use the "first cause" there. First cause by definition is first cause. Not the second cause.

This is why you should not repeat the same thing someone else said on the internet. Analyse it.

Arbitrarily defining the unknown "cause" of the universe as being the "first" cause, does not mean that it actually is the "first" cause.

Having said that, I have already explained how invoking causality in a setting where no space-time exists, is invalid.

 

[firedragon]

An infinite past wouldn't have a start.

Thats the absolutely fundamental of this argument in the OP. You have absolutely confirmed the argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

The other possibility is something from nothing.

No, as I said you can picture the space-time manifold as being a four-dimensional object and time being a direction through it. The manifold itself is not subject to time, whether the past direction through it is finite or not.

 

[firedragon]

I get that.
I can also see how atheists could claim that the universe could have no beginning, as the big-bang [the most prominent theory],
could indeed itself be an infinite regression, and not require an absolute beginning.

Sorry .. I'm playing "devil's advocate" here

See, even if there was something else before the Big Bang, even if someone is desperate to bring the Big Bang into a philosophical argument, that's no problem. Because if there was something before the Big Bang, that so called "Something" is still caused, thus there has to be a first cause that caused it.

Also brother. You have not understood infinite regression. Its evident from what you said above. An infinite regression is an explanation to a contingent being going back infinitely. Its a logical impossibility. Do you understand brother?

 

[ratiocinator]

Thats the absolutely fundamental of this argument in the OP. You have absolutely confirmed the argument.

Obviously you have no understanding of what I'm saying.

 

[firedragon]

Obviously you have no understanding of what I'm saying.

You said "An infinite past wouldn't have a start.".

Thats the foundation of the argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The other possibility is something from nothing.

Well, you call that a possibility, but it stands against reason.
We observe that everything has a reason.
To suggest that the one thing you can't account for happens
without reason would be rather a coincidence

 

[ratiocinator]

This is not a science experiment. This is a philosophical argument.

Except it isn't a purely philosophical argument because it relies on supposed 'facts' about the world for its premises. You cannot justify them without recourse to the observed universe, which is the domain of science.

If you're saying it's just philosophy I can just deny both premisses as being without philosophical justification and job done, the argument is unsound.

 

[ratiocinator]

You said "An infinite past wouldn't have a start.".

An infinite past doesn't need a start.

 

[exchemist]

Okay. Change the word. Focus on the concept.

Muthakil al wujud.

But I think if one takes away the question-begging word, then there is no argument left. I can't see what one can change it to that enables it to survive.

But really the issue comes down to whether it is true that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Modern physics suggests perhaps not, as @ratiocinator has pointed out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An infinite past doesn't need a start.

No, it doesn't.
That in turn, also implies no end.
It still doesn't answer the question why [the universe exists]?
..but that is not the topic.