The first cause argument

[We Never Know]

What do you mean by the term 'time' if not that which is measured by regular processes?

Why do you think there *is* anything 'outside of the universe'?

What do you mean by the term 'experience' if it is not within the universe?

Yes, time is an aspect of the universe (it may or may not be 'emergent'). it is part of the geometrical fabric of the universe, just like space is.

As for consciousness, give me a verified example of consciousness that doesn't involve brains.

"As for consciousness, give me a verified example of consciousness that doesn't involve brains"

They are trying to figure that out

https://www-sciencefocus-com.cdn.am...encefocus.com/news/plants-are-they-conscious/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by the term 'time' if not that which is measured by regular processes?

Why do you think there *is* anything 'outside of the universe'?

What do you mean by the term 'experience' if it is not within the universe?

Yes, time is an aspect of the universe (it may or may not be 'emergent'). it is part of the geometrical fabric of the universe, just like space is.

As for consciousness, give me a verified example of consciousness that doesn't involve brains.

Well, that is not the problem. The problem is the metaphysical and ontological status of the world and whether you treat your opinion about that as the truth or if you are a skeptic.

 

[viole]

Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time..
-wiki-

Much like quantum mechanics, there are different interpretations.
It makes no sense to me, to interpret relativity in a sense that an infinite number of earths exist. That is nonsensical.

It is that time is not an absolute phenomena, and it depends on the frame of reference how we perceive events.
i.e. in which order and frequency they occur

I think what you call nonsensical is something that goes against your intuition. There is nothing nonsensical in postulating that physical states and events are mapped on the 4 dimensional continuum in an eternal and atemporal way.

Now, since this ontology appears to be accepted by many physicists and philosophers, do you have some solid defeater, apart from calling it nonsensical without any further justification?

If not, then it is a live option, and your argument based on beginnings cannot be used to draw any conclusion concerning first causes. Actually, the fact that it strongly relies on presentism, that does not account for what what we observe in nature, allows us to conclude, with high confidence, that it is not sound.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think what you call nonsensical is something that goes against your intuition. There is nothing nonsensical in postulating that physical states and events are mapped on the 4 dimensional continuum in an eternal and atemporal way.

Now, since this ontology appears to be accepted by many physicists and philosophers, do you have some solid defeater, apart from calling it nonsensical without any further justification?

If not, then it is a live option, and your argument based on beginnings cannot be used to draw any conclusion concerning first causes. Actually, the fact that it strongly relies on presentism, that does not account for what what we observe in nature, allows us to conclude, with high confidence, that it is not sound.

Ciao

- viole

Well, as long as you understand the limitation of that and don't declare it objectively true, you can accept away all you like.

 

[firedragon]

If you mean the Big Bang, we do not know.

I didnt say the Big Bang. It was you who was making very informed like claims.

 

[Polymath257]

I didnt say the Big Bang. It was you who was making very informed like claims.

Did you read the rest of my answer?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think what you call nonsensical is something that goes against your intuition. There is nothing nonsensical in postulating that physical states and events are mapped on the 4 dimensional continuum in an eternal and atemporal way.

Now, since this ontology appears to be accepted by many physicists and philosophers, do you have some solid defeater, apart from calling it nonsensical without any further justification?

I haven't called the block-theory of time nonsensical.
I am an eternalist myself, as was Einstein.

I'm just challenging your interpretation of it, that's all.

 

[firedragon]

Did you read the rest of my answer?

After an aunty sally, there is no necessity.

 

[Polymath257]

After an aunty sally, there is no necessity.

What in the world is an 'aunt sally'?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What in the world is an 'aunt sally'?

straw man

 

[Polymath257]

straw man

Aww....ok.

Except that it wasn't a straw man. It was one typical interpretation of the question he asked. And I clarified that it was directed to that interpretation and also dealt with other interpretations.

 

[firedragon]

What in the world is an 'aunt sally'?

Its a strawman. Its not slang, its just an old phrase.

 

[leroy]

It is not poor, you have been unable to put an argument against it other than calling it "poor"

Again, your argument is poor because one doesn’t have to explain the origin of the cause, in order to establish that A is the Cause of B.

The argument “if god is the cause for the universe, then who is that cause for God?” is poor for that reason.

 

[firedragon]

It is not poor, you have been unable to put an argument against it other than calling it "poor"

The reason your argument is absolutely invalid and illogical is because a first cause by definition cannot have a first cause, and the argument is that there is a first cause because every being that came into existence had a cause, so it goes back to the first cause.

Even that sentence "what caused the first cause" is an illogical statement. It is like "I want to meet a married bachelor".

I know a lot of atheist apologists on the internet say this. Dont repeat it. Illogical. Law of non-contradiction. The most basic axiom in logic.

 

[Altfish]

Again, your argument is poor because one doesn’t have to explain the origin of the cause, in order to establish that A is the Cause of B.

The argument “if god is the cause for the universe, then who is that cause for God?” is poor for that reason.

So, explain again...humour me.

Why if it is ok to explain that A causes B; cannot I follow it up with "What causes A?"
To me, that is the logical next question. Why am I wrong?

 

[Altfish]

The reason your argument is absolutely invalid and illogical is because a first cause by definition cannot have a first cause, and the argument is that there is a first cause because every being that came into existence had a cause, so it goes back to the first cause.

Even that sentence "what caused the first cause" is an illogical statement. It is like "I want to meet a married bachelor".

I know a lot of atheist apologists on the internet say this. Dont repeat it. Illogical. Law of non-contradiction. The most basic axiom in logic.

Which is exactly why the first cause argument fails every time.
It is special pleading. You have not proved there was a first cause, you are just stating, "There must be a first cause"

 

[firedragon]

Which is exactly why the first cause argument fails every time.

Well, that's just a baseless statement because you have not demonstrated why.

It is like saying "I have no evidence this tree is gonna put out money fruits, but I just believe it anyway".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which is exactly why the first cause argument fails every time.
It is special pleading. You have not proved there was a first cause, you are just stating, "There must be a first cause"

A sufficient reason is sometimes described as the coincidence of every single thing that is needed for the occurrence of an effect.

Is there a sufficient reason for there NOT to be a first cause?
Surely, it would imply that the reason for all that we see is merely coincidence.
Not acceptable to me..

 

[ratiocinator]

A sufficient reason is sometimes described as the coincidence of every single thing that is needed for the occurrence of an effect.

Is there a sufficient reason for there NOT to be a first cause?
Surely, it would imply that the reason for all that we see is merely coincidence.
Not acceptable to me..

First of all, reality is under no obligation to be acceptable to you. Secondly, and as has already been discussed at some length earlier in this thread, the whole idea of causality is derived from things we observe within the universe, and specifically on the existence of time (which is an attribute of the universe), so to apply it to the universe as a whole is, at the very least, highly questionable. Thirdly, the idea that everything that starts to exist has a cause doesn't even seem to be universally the case even within the universe (quantum fluctuations).

The fact remains, that with or without a 'first cause', we still have no answer at all to the question of why things exist and are as they are, because we can go on asking about why the first cause just happened to exist in order to cause everything else. Was that just a 'coincidence'?

 

[muhammad_isa]

First of all, reality is under no obligation to be acceptable to you..

A non-argument..

Secondly, and as has already been discussed at some length earlier in this thread, the whole idea of causality is derived from things we observe within the universe, and specifically on the existence of time (which is an attribute of the universe), so to apply it to the universe as a whole is, at the very least, highly questionable..

No, sorry. You cannot prove that time is an emergent property of the universe.

Thirdly, the idea that everything that starts to exist has a cause doesn't even seem to be universally the case even within the universe (quantum fluctuations).

Doesn't seem to be?
Nobody categorically knows for a fact how quantum phenomena should be interpreted.

No, if you don't wish to think that a first cause is necessary, you imply that infinite regression is plausible.
That, in turn, implies that everything we see is one big coincidence.