The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

A non-argument.

I was calling out your non-argument. You simply cannot use what is acceptable to you as being an argument for its truth.

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

It's not a question of proof (which is only something you get in mathematics and pure logic). The current scientific evidence and our best tested theories indicate that space-time is very much a part of the universe, which can 'curve' (causing gravity) and may, quite possibly, be finite in the past direction. It may also be infinite in the past, we simply don't know yet but you can't dismiss the logical possibility of either.

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

Again, it's a question of evidence and well tested theories, which, at the very least, introduce the logical possibly, and the mere existence of logically self-consistent alternatives is sufficient to undermine the 'first cause' argument.

No, if you don't wish to think that a first cause is necessary, you imply that infinite regression is plausible.

It obviously is plausible in terms of an infinite past (there is no contradiction). It's also plausible that time may be finite in the past without a first cause.

That, in turn, implies that everything we see is one big coincidence.

Not even sure what 'coincidence' would mean in this context, but so what? The existence of an unexplained first cause would be equally 'coincidental' (unexplained). The existence of a first cause is not an explanation for why something exists rather than nothing, nor does it explain why things are the way they are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The existence of an unexplained first cause would be equally 'coincidental' (unexplained).

No, not "equally".
You imply that we are oblivious of what the first cause might be, which we are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does defy logic.
If one says something begins at a certain time, but there can be no before, that is illogical.

Do you think the same thing about degrees of latitude?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, not "equally".
You imply that we are oblivious of what the first cause might be, which we are not.

Firstly, we are oblivious of what it might be, at least as far as the first cause argument (as presented here) goes. If you want to go beyond that, then feel free, but as the first cause argument (again, as presented here) has already been shown to be unsound, it would be pretty pointless.

If you're referring to some god, then my point stands regardless. Unless you can give a sufficient reason why it had to exist, rather than anything else (a different god, multiple gods, or something else that can serve as a first cause) or nothing at all, you're left with just as much of a 'coincidence' (something we have no idea why it exists and why it is what it is).

Postulating a god really is totally useless at addressing the basic mystery of existence.

 

[Altfish]

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".

No, as I keep saying, explain to me how "god" is always there.
You are making an incredible claim - PROVE IT.

 

[Altfish]

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..

If it is not acceptable to you, that's fine.
But why invent an answer; I much prefer the honest, "I don't know"

 

[muhammad_isa]

Postulating a god really is totally useless at addressing the basic mystery of existence.

I have not found that to be the case.
It is clearly subjective, and we are all entitled to our opinions.

When it comes to logic, however, I think that people often make false arguments.
A case in point, would be that of the compatibilist objections by the majority of staunch atheists.
G-d knows best whose logic is correct.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have not found that to be the case.
It is clearly subjective, and we are all entitled to our opinions.

If it's subjective then it's also meaningless as an explanation for the mystery of existence. Sounds like you've just made up something you found 'acceptable' and just assumed it is true. Can you actually give a credible and logical answer the question of why your god just happened to exist, rather than another one, many gods, no gods, or nothing at all?

When it comes to logic, however, I think that people often make false arguments.

They certainly do.

A case in point, would be that of the compatibilist objections by the majority of staunch atheists.

Not sure what you mean. In fact nobody really needs an objection to something for which there is no supporting evidence or reasoning in the first place (basic burden of proof).

 

[firedragon]

No, as I keep saying, explain to me how "god" is always there.
You are making an incredible claim - PROVE IT.

I didnt say anything about God in the OP. So, rather than making some strawman in order to hide the fact you made such an illogical first=second contradiction which is an internal contradiction, not an external or an emotional appeal, make a logical statement.

 

[Altfish]

I didnt say anything about God in the OP. So, rather than making some strawman in order to hide the fact you made such an illogical first=second contradiction which is an internal contradiction, not an external or an emotional appeal, make a logical statement.

Note, I put the word in inverted commas. Indicating that I was using that word as as good a word as any.

 

[firedragon]

Note, I put the word in inverted commas. Indicating that I was using that word as as good a word as any.

Invalid.

And, "hide the fact you made such an illogical first=second contradiction which is an internal contradiction, not an external or an emotional appeal, make a logical statement." Do you understand that sentence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's subjective then it's also meaningless as an explanation for the mystery of existence..

Of course it isn't !
Is your opinion meaningless?

 

[leroy]

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?

Granted that is a valid and interesting question, but irrelevant to weather if the argument presented in the OP is valid or not.

You can ask that question and expect an answer, but you can’t present that question as an objection to the argument presented in the OP.

That is like asking “what caused the big bang” sure that is a good question but irrelevant to weather if this event took place or not……………. In other words you can conclude that the Big Bang is true even if you don’t know what caused the big bang.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But why invent an answer..

I haven't.
I find the first cause argument appealing.
It makes no sense to me that there would be an "infinite cause".

I also find the arguments for the Abrahamic G-d make sense, and I have experienced being a "G-d fearer" for over 45 years, and can see how fortunate I am.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Thats a misrepresentation of the argument.

It is not about A and B. It is about First and second. A first cannot be second. That breaks PNC in logic. In fact, one of the most blatant collapse of logic.

 

[Altfish]

Invalid.

And, "hide the fact you made such an illogical first=second contradiction which is an internal contradiction, not an external or an emotional appeal, make a logical statement." Do you understand that sentence?

Sorry, didn't realise there were rules.

I'll leave you to you fantasy world.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, didn't realise there were rules.

I'll leave you to you fantasy world.

Its the most basic logic mate. Not even a school child would so blatantly contradict himself in one sentence to this level. I cannot understand how you could not understand it. Really.

Yet of course those usual "fantasy world" ad hominem would come up when arguments are not valid.

 

[Altfish]

Granted that is a valid and interesting question, but irrelevant to weather if the argument presented in the OP is valid or not.

You can ask that question and expect an answer, but you can’t present that question as an objection to the argument presented in the OP.

That is like asking “what caused the big bang” sure that is a good question but irrelevant to weather if this event took place or not……………. In other words you can conclude that the Big Bang is true even if you don’t know what caused the big bang.

No the KCA argues for the existence of god; the argument is not valid to prove god's existence. It assumes there is a first cause. This is not accepted by science.
The Big Bang happened, There is good evidence for it.
I don't know what happened or caused the Big Bang but no one is saying nothing happened before the Big Bang

 

[Altfish]

Thats a misrepresentation of the argument.

It is not about A and B. It is about First and second. A first cannot be second. That breaks PNC in logic. In fact, one of the most blatant collapse of logic.

But you are assuming there is a first!

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know what happened or caused the Big Bang but no one is saying nothing happened before the Big Bang

Science can't answer that question.
It is clear, that if the universe did not exist , it is impossible to answer through scientific observation.
If it DID exist before the big-bang, then you are assuming some kind of infinite regression?
..which effectively means that there IS no underlying reason for the chain of events .. which is unsatisfactory. It is too hard to believe that everything we see has no initial cause or reason.