The first cause argument

[TagliatelliMonster]

What time?

I know of only one "time". And it's the time aspect of the universe.
If you can demonstrate some other "time", feel free to do so.
You certainly like to claim that there is some other flow of time. You like to claim a lot of things without evidence.

Is this your proof that God cannot possibly exist?

The topic is the first cause argument. Please pay attention.

i.e. As time started at t=0, it is impossible for God to exist eternally

The topic is the first cause argument, not God. Please pay attention.

So instead: time started at t = 0, which is also the start / beginning of the universe (aka, the space-time continuum). There is no "before" that, as "before" refers to a time period. There is no "before" time just like there is no "north" of the north pole.

Causality requires temporal conditions to manifest.
Causes happen before effects.

So whatever happened at T = 0 was uncaused by definition, since there is no "before" there for a cause to happen in.

And as pointed out multiple times already, causality isn't as universal a phenomenon as "first cause argument" apologists would like to make you believe... Causality, as a universal principle, gets very shaky at the quantum level.

The fact that you see science as definitive, is blinding you.

It's not "definitive". It's rather "the best we got". It's you who is insisting on "arguments" that fly in the face of scientific knowledge.

It is a tool to describe our universe.

And a very good one at that. So why do you insist on ignoring it?

Nothing more, and nothing less. It cannot possibly tell us anything about the absolute nature of time and space.

It's nevertheless the best we got. Why would you want to ignore the best evidence based knowledge we have, just so you can make a silly evidenceless argument?

You invoke the laws of physics as if they apply to t=0. How do you know that they do?

Physics.
You are invoking the laws of physics, which are dependent on the nature of the universe in a context where no universe exists. Why do YOU think that the laws of the universe apply without the universe? How does that proposition even make any kind of sense at all?

You are merely interpolating, and that, when you have absolutely no idea of what might be.

I can only turn to physics for our best idea. What are you turning to?

You atheists always try blinding us with concepts of infinity and mathematics.
Well, this one here is not fooled .. not in the long run.

You theists always try to ignore science to pretend your juvenile unscientific "arguments" work.

You say that you conclude that time is a property of the universe.

"I" don't conclude that. Our best theories in physics conclude that.
The very same theories that makes stuff like GPS possible.

You reach that conclusion as you observe that time is related to space, and that we have discovered physical laws, and do some calculations on the back of an envelope that time has no further meaning, and will cease to mean anything at t=0.

No. Instead, these are consequences of very established scientific theories like relativity.

If you think that theories like relativity have no merit beyond "some calculations on the back of an envelope", then I can only laugh at your ignorance tbh.

This is all based on the assumption that time is only a property of the universe in the first place.
You can't prove that. It is just a belief

Not an assumption. Rather a consequence of established theories like relativity.
By me guest if you want to pretend as if these theories are incorrect and want to blindly assume things that fly in the face of established science.

But don't expect me to take you seriously.

And again: it's hilarious that you have no problem invoking these theories to claim that the universe had a "beginning" and then wish to reject all the aspects of those same theories because they contradict the rest of this juvenile argument.

Funny how theists always invoke science when it suits them, and then start questioning it all when it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you guess that the Big Bang is spoken of in the OP? The OP is talking of the the "first cause". Thus, if something was there before the Big Bang, it is still caused and has a cause.

There is no "before" the big bang just like there is no "north" of the north pole.
So no, by definition of "causality", the big bang is uncaused.
The big bang itself is thus the "first cause".

 

[Altfish]

I´ts a good and valid question, but irrelevant for the KCA.

"KCA" ??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"KCA" ??

Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I know of only one "time". And it's the time aspect of the universe.

Not really..
We can measure time by a clock , or by moving celestial objects, but we can't dismiss philosophical interpretations as "wrong".
We are aware that we exist. The time that passes is relative to our frame of reference, and not absolute.
This suggests that measured time is not straightforward, but only a perception.

You theists always try to ignore science to pretend your juvenile unscientific "arguments" work..

I am clearly NOT ignoring science.

If you think that theories like relativity have no merit beyond "some calculations on the back of an envelope", then I can only laugh at your ignorance tbh.

You know very well that I am not challenging Einstein's theory of relativity.
I am challenging your interpretation of what happens at t=0.
Infinities [including zero] are problematic. One can "prove" anything they like by simple calculation.

Einstein demonstrates how space interacts with time in our universe.
Show me where he makes any conclusions about t=0?
Einstein isn't that daft. He knows about mathematical paradoxes and so on.

 

[viole]

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.

I just copy and paste one of my recent posts since it is applicable also here.

This argument makes an implicit assumption concerning the ontology of time. Namely, that time is Newtonian, ergo absolute and sort of external to the rest. This ontology, usually called the A theory of time, corresponds to our intuition of time. What exists is the present; what is in the past ceased to exist and what lies in the future is not existing yet.

An increasingly popular theory of time is the B theory. It is increasingly popular because Einstein showed that the A theory does not account for relativistic effects, and it is therefore very likely false. That B theory corresponds to time as in the special theory of relativity. The whole Universe is a 4 dimensional manifold punctuated with all physical events. All those events exist eternally on a block Universe, eternal and unchanging. Events including the Big Bang, my birth, my death, etc. existing as we speak. So, according to that ontology, there is no physical flow of time, and what we perceive as a flow is an illusion of our psychology.

So, if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist. And if that is true, then P1 is true, while P2 is clearly false, and therefore the argument is not sound.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist..

You'll have to show us explicitly why that is true..

 

[Polymath257]

How about this deduction?

P1: All causes happen within the universe.

This is consistent with everything we know about causality.

P2. All things within the universe began to exist.

This may or may not be true, but we take it as an assumption.

Conclusion 1: The universe is uncaused. Otherwise, the universe would be within the universe, contradiction.

Conclusion 2: If everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause, then there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 3: If there is something within the universe that does not have a cause, then there is something that begins and does not have a cause (since everything in the universe begins to exist).

Conclusion 4: Either there is something within the universe that begins and is not caused OR there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 5: If P2 fails, there is something within the universe that did not begin to exist.

 

[Lain]

How about this deduction?

P1: All causes happen within the universe.

This is consistent with everything we know about causality.

P2. All things within the universe began to exist.

This may or may not be true, but we take it as an assumption.

Conclusion 1: The universe is uncaused. Otherwise, the universe would be within the universe, contradiction.

Conclusion 2: If everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause, then there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 3: If there is something within the universe that does not have a cause, then there is something that begins and does not have a cause (since everything in the universe begins to exist).

Conclusion 4: Either there is something within the universe that begins and is not caused OR there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 5: If P2 fails, there is something within the universe that did not begin to exist.

How are you defining the Universe here?

 

[Polymath257]

You'll have to show us explicitly why that is true..

If the B theory is correct, then all of space and time exists. There is no 'beginning' because everything *already* exists.

Remember that this is outside of time: time is within spacetime.

 

[Polymath257]

How are you defining the Universe here?

Well, we can start with whatever physics deals with. Many people call it the material universe, but I tend not to use that terminology.

If you want to replace P1 by this, the argument also works:

P1: everything that causes something physical is itself physical.

This would lead to either an infinite regress of physical causes OR something that is physical that is uncaused.

 

[sayak83]

I just copy and paste one of my recent posts since it is applicable also here.

This argument makes an implicit assumption concerning the ontology of time. Namely, that time is Newtonian, ergo absolute and sort of external to the rest. This ontology, usually called the A theory of time, corresponds to our intuition of time. What exists is the present; what is in the past ceased to exist and what lies in the future is not existing yet.

An increasingly popular theory of time is the B theory. It is increasingly popular because Einstein showed that the A theory does not account for relativistic effects, and it is therefore very likely false. That B theory corresponds to time as in the special theory of relativity. The whole Universe is a 4 dimensional manifold punctuated with all physical events. All those events exist eternally on a block Universe, eternal and unchanging. Events including the Big Bang, my birth, my death, etc. existing as we speak. So, according to that ontology, there is no physical flow of time, and what we perceive as a flow is an illusion of our psychology.

So, if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist. And if that is true, then P1 is true, while P2 is clearly false, and therefore the argument is not sound.

Ciao

- viole

Its likely that neither theory is correct. Relativity is against A theory and QM is against B theory.
The most likely bet is time is an emergent and derived phenomena and hence a fundamental description cannot be had of it.

 

[firedragon]

How about this deduction?

P1: All causes happen within the universe.

This is consistent with everything we know about causality.

P2. All things within the universe began to exist.

This may or may not be true, but we take it as an assumption.

Conclusion 1: The universe is uncaused. Otherwise, the universe would be within the universe, contradiction.

Conclusion 2: If everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause, then there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 3: If there is something within the universe that does not have a cause, then there is something that begins and does not have a cause (since everything in the universe begins to exist).

Conclusion 4: Either there is something within the universe that begins and is not caused OR there is an infinite regress of causes within the universe.

Conclusion 5: If P2 fails, there is something within the universe that did not begin to exist.

How did your P2 make one assumption, and a second assumption that "Only things within the universe are caused and the universe is not within the universe so is uncaused"? How do you prove that the universe is not within the universe and if anything is outside the universe it is uncaused? If what is outside the universe are uncaused, then the first cause which is outside the universe is by default is uncaused. You proved the OP with a dreamt up cheap shot unknowingly.

No one would ever think they live to see bad logic like this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Remember that this is outside of time: time is within spacetime.

No, that is circular reasoning.
We have already defined 'time' in terms of space, as in 'measured time in our frame of reference'.

 

[Altfish]

Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Good grief, I did wonder and then thought, "No, can't be, that's been debunked so many times"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good grief, I did wonder and then thought, "No, can't be, that's been debunked so many times"

Well, in their defense...
It's been decades, if not centuries, ever since apologists have come up with something original.
At best, their "new" arguments are just a refurbishing of the good ol' PRATTs, at best sometimes disguised in a lab coat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really..

Yes really.

We can measure time by a clock , or by moving celestial objects, but we can't dismiss philosophical interpretations as "wrong".

I don't even know what that means.
I'm betting that you are using "philosophy" as some kind of escape pod which really means "unfalsifiable" and / or "imaginary"

We are aware that we exist. The time that passes is relative to our frame of reference, and not absolute.
This suggests that measured time is not straightforward, but only a perception.

You think I'm unaware that time is relative?
The very theory that you wish to reject (in part) to make your argument work, is the theory that posits that time is relative - and provides the equations to demonstrate that.
These equations are also that which determines "time" to be an aspect / property of the very fabric of the universe. Aka, the space-time continuum.

Funny how you are once again trying to reference a theory to "prove your point" while you simultaneously need to reject that theory because "it doesn't work with your point".

I am clearly NOT ignoring science.

Only the parts that don't sit well with apologetics.

You know very well that I am not challenging Einstein's theory of relativity.

Except that you are. You might perhaps not be realizing it, perhaps due to ignorance, but that is exactly what you are doing when you say that "time" is something that exists independently of the universe.

That the universe consists of an interwoven fabric of space and time, aka spacetime, is the crux of the theory of relativity.

I am challenging your interpretation of what happens at t=0.

I made no claims about what happened there. I said that it marks the start / beginning of the universe. Of space-time. Thus of time itself, in particular.
By trying to posit a "cause" for the universe, you are saying the universe was an effect.

To recap, this has 2 major problems:
1. it requires that an event occurred BEFORE t = 0. Thus BEFORE time itself existed. This is nonsensical
2. causality itself, is a phenomenon of physics (and likely not even a universal one as it gets shaky at the quantum level). Physics, as it works IN the universe and as it is dependend on the universe. Physics, that DO NOT EXIST if the universe doesn't exist. So you are trying to invoke a physical phenomenon BEFORE IT EXISTS.

Infinities [including zero] are problematic. One can "prove" anything they like by simple calculation.

I have no idea how you think this is relevant. I never spoke about infinities.

Einstein demonstrates how space interacts with time in our universe.
Show me where he makes any conclusions about t=0?
Einstein isn't that daft. He knows about mathematical paradoxes and so on.

The theory of relativity posits the fabric of space time as together making up the universe.
Mean that both space and time exists within our universe bubble.
Removing the universe = remove space and time.

So the start of the universe, is T = 0 (and S = 0, where 'S' stands for 'space')
No universe = no space = no time (and no physics of space-time)



So in summary, the OP argument wants to use science as a starting point to support its premises, but wants to ignore the same science when it doesn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have no idea how you think this is relevant. I never spoke about infinities..

Well let me expand on the point.. [big-bang .. expand ]
Zero, can be seen as an infinitely small quantity. You are using it mathematically, so that applies.
Applying this to the big-bang, we could suggest that as t approaches zero, it becomes undefinable.

The theory of relativity posits the fabric of space time as together making up the universe.
Mean that both space and time exists within our universe bubble.
Removing the universe = remove space and time.

You keep saying this.
A theory which explains phenomena in the universe, cannot explicitly tell us about
a situation where the universe does not exist.
It is a contradiction, as we have already defined time as being dependent on space.

I have already said that whatever you think physical theories might imply,
it is based on one's original assumptions.

 

[viole]

You'll have to show us explicitly why that is true..

Do I? In order to make your argument sound, you have to show us that is false. For, as long as it is a live possibility, your argument cannot draw any conclusions.

Anyway, the evidence of relativity is overwhelming. And no Kalam-like ontology of time fits with the experiments. And it must be therefore considered false, like all theories which do not fit with experiments. Therefore, all evidence points towards the main assumption of the argument not being true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Its likely that neither theory is correct. Relativity is against A theory and QM is against B theory.
The most likely bet is time is an emergent and derived phenomena and hence a fundamental description cannot be had of it.

Well, I used the nuclear option to defuse the argument, but I do not think it is really needed. Sort of like killing a fly with an atomic bomb. It can actually be easily defeated by using classical physics. Like what was available to Boltzmann and co.

How, is left as a simple exercise to the reader. I will only give a little hint: check the origins of the arrow of time.

Ciao

- viole