The first cause argument

[danieldemol]

So you think that a being that has beginning has "no cause"?

I think it is possible that a being that has a beginning has no cause, what is your argument that it is impossible (apart from incredulity which is not very convincing)?

You think that a being can come into existence just like a rabbit come out of a hat right? So you are a believer in magic.

Rabbits have not been observed to come out of vacuums, but if electrons etc have then I am open to the idea that the quantum world is sufficiently counter-intuitive to appear to be magical in some sense.

Of course the alternative is that one or more first cause/(s) was magically always there so I dont see how your philosophy offers any improvement on magic.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. In your scenario did the first cause always exist?

Thats a valid question. But that's a different discussion. I understand that it is fundamental to validate the first cause. But it is still a separate discussion.

First, one has to either establish or dismantle the first cause ever existed.

 

[firedragon]

I think it is possible that a being that has a beginning has no cause

How is that possible? Magic? Even if you believe in magic, still there has to be a magician which is still a cause for a being the came into existence.

 

[danieldemol]

How is that possible? Magic? Even if you believe in magic, still there has to be a magician which is still a cause for a being the came into existence.

Why do you feel there has to be a magician when none has been observed?

In my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

How is that possible? Magic? Even if you believe in magic, still there has to be a magician which is still a cause for a being the came into existence.

Which goes back to what i said.. Was the first cause magic or was it always there? If it was always here what did it exist in before anything else was existing?

Did it not exist then came to exist? If so, what caused it?

 

[firedragon]

Why do you feel there has to be a magician when none has been observed?

In my opinion.

Good question to ask yourself.

 

[firedragon]

Which goes back to what i said.. Was the first cause magic or was it always there?

As I said already, the nature of the first cause is another discussion. Valid, but not in the scope of this thread. If you agree that there has to be a first cause, you can of course ask this question of the nature of the first cause in another thread.

Cheers.

 

[We Never Know]

As I said already, the nature of the first cause is another discussion. Valid, but not in the scope of this thread. If you agree that there has to be a first cause, you can of course ask this question of the nature of the first cause in another thread.

Cheers.

What are your thoughts on a first cause
-it had a cause
-it always existed
-we don't know.

Cheers

 

[firedragon]

What are your thoughts on a first cause
-it had a cause
-it always existed
-we don't know.

Cheers

Ah. Brother, I am not gonna discuss the nature of the first cause in this thread. You can easily misunderstand me personally but that's not a problem. But it has to be in a new thread. I am sure you understand basic nature of the so called "first cause". That is why you are asking this question. And as I said the question is completely valid. But I simply cannot go against my own OP. So what I can do is, I can promise you I will open a new thread to discuss the nature the of the first cause.

I sincerely hope you understand. Cheers.

 

[danieldemol]

Good question to ask yourself.

If you are saying I should ask myself why I believe in a God my answer would be because I'm an irrational human with irrational intuitions. But I do not feel there has to be a magician in the vacuum magicing electrons etc into existence if that is what you are referring to, so in that sense I do not see how the question applies to me.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

If you are saying I should ask myself why I believe in a God

Irrelevant. Please read the OP.

 

[We Never Know]

Ah. Brother, I am not gonna discuss the nature of the first cause in this thread. You can easily misunderstand me personally but that's not a problem. But it has to be in a new thread. I am sure you understand basic nature of the so called "first cause". That is why you are asking this question. And as I said the question is completely valid. But I simply cannot go against my own OP. So what I can do is, I can promise you I will open a new thread to discuss the nature the of the first cause.

I sincerely hope you understand. Cheers.

I really don't understand not wanting to discuss the first cause in a thread you started about the first cause but that's ok.
Maybe you were simply seeking insight/input which I do quite often.
No problem brother. Cheers and have a good night.

 

[danieldemol]

Irrelevant. Please read the OP.

If it is irrelevant then please explain why the question I put to you also applies to me, here it is again to refresh your memory;

Why do you feel there has to be a magician when none has been observed?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I really don't understand not wanting to discuss the first cause in a thread you started about the first cause but that's ok.

WNK. You do not understand what I said. We can discuss the first cause all you want. Not the nature. That is a whole other discussion.

I will try to give you an example. Try.

Lets say there is a case where one has to identify the cause of a fire. There was a magnifier which was in the guise of a simple glass roof top, and the cause of the fire was the sun itself. First, you have to identity the cause. Lets say you identify it as the sun. What is the sun, the nature of it can be discussed separately. But first, you have to identify the source.

I dont know if that is a good enough example. But I tried.

This is a normal yardstick in philosophy.

 

[firedragon]

If it is irrelevant then please explain why the question I put to you also applies to me, here it is again to refresh your memory;

It is a question for you. Because it is you who is appealing to a magician.

 

[We Never Know]

WNK. You do not understand what I said. We can discuss the first cause all you want. Not the nature. That is a whole other discussion.

I will try to give you an example. Try.

Lets say there is a case where one has to identify the cause of a fire. There was a magnifier which was in the guise of a simple glass roof top, and the cause of the fire was the sun itself. First, you have to identity the cause. Lets say you identify it as the sun. What is the sun, the nature of it can be discussed separately. But first, you have to identify the source.

I dont know if that is a good enough example. But I tried.

This is a normal yardstick in philosophy.

What I see here is why even talk about a first cause unless we can identify that cause, which might or might not be the first cause. And then if we identify the cause, we should take it further to identify the first cause. Maybe we can or can't but the discussion couldn't hurt.

Its all good. Good night.

 

[danieldemol]

It is a question for you. Because it is you who is appealing to a magician.

Incorrect, I appealed to the magic of the universe at the quantum level, it is you who is appealing to a magician;

...Even if you believe in magic, still there has to be a magician...

Strawman on your part.

In my opinion

 

[Ponder This]

you can defend that only if you consider, as beginning and end, two atemporal locations in spacetime. Ergo, you need to label as “beginning” a certain location in spacetime. Not in time. Same with “end”. So, the beginning has not a temporal coordinate, but a spacetime one, since only events on the 4 dimensional manifold have objective meaning.

Instead of two isolated atemporal locations (which I don't think actually makes that much sense except perhaps from a chosen frame of reference?), I can use any defined boundary for beings in space-time, just as I would consider the entire surface of the Earth to be the beginning and ending of the Earth and not just one point on the surface of the Earth as being the "beginning" of the Earth, except by choosing that point in a frame of reference.

what are the coordinates in spacetime of spacetime itself? Hoe can you say, according to this ontology, then, that the Universe had a beginning?

I agree this is a problem. The universe itself is not a space-time event, it is the collection of ALL space-time events. The cup that holds the water is not itself part of the water.

Only in the sense that the surface of the Earth has a beginning at the north pole.

More like in the sense that the Earth has a surface.

It's unsound because both its premises have been shown to be scientifically questionable. It is not clearly true that everything with a beginning has a cause, nor is it necessarily true that the universe had a beginning. Nor can we necessarily deduce anything about causation of the universe as a whole based on observations of what goes on within it (specifically within space-time).

To be unsound it has to be false. Science has not shown it to be false. Science is more supportive of the premises as sound than unsound.

It starts of with Hilbert's Hotel, which (as has already been discussed earlier in this thread) isn't absurd at all, just counter-intuitive. There are no logical problems with real infinities otherwise we couldn't deal with them mathematically. The domino's just confuse a start an infinite time ago with an infinite past with no start. As we now understand time as just a direction in space-time, an infinite past is no more difficult to imagine than infinite space (which we have reasonable reasons to think is actually the case).
Got bored after that. I've read WLC's arguments before and they're all just laughable.

The Hilbert's Hotel Analogy failed to raise a relevant objection.

His argument against the Hilbert Hotel amounts to saying 'this doesn't make sense, so it must be wrong!'. He actually gives no contradiction.
In the second, the first axiom should be closer to 'a collection formed by successive addition *from a beginning* cannot be an actual infinite'. This would be true, but does not apply, because the second axiom would then have to be 'the temporal series of events formed by successive addition from a beginning'. And that is precisely the point that is at issue: was there a beginning or not? So, he has assumed his conclusion. Not a valid argument.
The singularity theorems depend on a non-quantum description and do not apply to any of the quantum gravity theories we have, so the conclusion does not follow.
I didn't see the fourth, but you only asked to show one was wrong and I showed three.

I would agree that he hasn't been very explanatory about his objections.

Do you see the jump in logic here? You went from 'This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression' to ' Thus the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning'.
The problem is that the conclusion 'The universe had a beginning' doesn't follow from the infinite regression in the previous sentence.

I never said there indeed is an infinite regression.

You did refer to an infinite regression in the OP though.

In philosophy, infinite regression is a "no no". There are lots of arguments for it. If you wish, that can be discussed.

The problem with infinite regression seems to be an important point.

In all honestly, unless we know the first cause, its pretty pointless to argue or debate about a/the first cause unless its all addressed as opinion.
If B caused C and A caused B,, isnt it logical to think A had a cause or is it an opinion?

If B caused C and A caused B, then, no, it does not logically follow that A had a cause.

________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that people are arguing either that the universe is eternal (and caused itself) or they are arguing that it had a cause besides itself (which is eternal).

Is it correct to say that everyone agrees there is an eternal cause? Is there anybody arguing that the universe is both not itself eternal, self-causing AND did not have a cause which is eternal?

 

[ratiocinator]

More like in the sense that the Earth has a surface.

But since time is internal to the 'surface' we are talking about (like latitude on the Earth), in what sense can it have a beginning? It would be just a static (timeless) object.

To be unsound it has to be false.

No, for a deductive argument to be sound its premises must definitely be true, not just guesses, possibilities, or intuition.

Science has not shown it to be false. Science is more supportive of the premises as sound than unsound.

This is simply not the case. We have counterexamples in current science for P1, and P2 is highly questionable for several reasons that have been explained here several times now.

It seems to me that people are arguing either that the universe is eternal (and caused itself)...

Hang on a moment, in what way do you think an eternal universe caused itself? Why does that follow?

Is it correct to say that everyone agrees there is an eternal cause?

No. I see no reason why it had to have a cause at all.

Is there anybody arguing that the universe is both not itself eternal, self-causing AND did not have a cause which is eternal?

That's a bit of a confused sentence as you still seem to be identifying an eternal universe with being self-caused. I'm not actually arguing for any position because we just don't know. I'm arguing that the claim that the universe had a cause has not been established.

 

[firedragon]

You did refer to an infinite regression in the OP though.

Of course. But anyone who knows it, knows that an infinite regression is not possible.