The first cause argument

[muhammad_isa]

An infinite regression means uncaused (it didn't begin), not that it caused itself.

That is purely semantics. It boils down to the same thing.
We are not really discussing the possibiliy of an infinite universe in time, we are discussing an infinite chain of causes .

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no circle with an infinite diameter because such would have no center. A circle is the collection of points equidistant from some central point..

Yes .. that's interesting.
You speak about an infinite past, which can be represented as a straight line with infinite length.
The diameter of a circle is a straight line, and you imply that there is no such thing as an infinite circle.. hmm

A circular argument is one that uses its conclusion as part of the argument. For example, Using the Bible as evidence for God and saying you believe in God because of what the Bible says. THAT is circular.

What a wonderful example, not that I disagree.
..but you are showing your true colours. [ you have no respect for the Bible ]

In any case, it is pedantic to suggest that there might not be a first cause, and that there could be an infinite amount of causes.
If you think that it is likely, then you carry on with your hypothesis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..What distinctions are there between finite and infinite quantities?

Whatever you wish to define them to be, as in mathematical representation.

 

[Polymath257]

When you back in caused beings, it is only logical that there is a first cause. It is not "that cause is the first cause", but that there is a first cause.

Your statement is contradicting.

OK, let's go through the first cause argument in a bit more detail.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the following is a true statement:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it beginning to exist.

So, we also need

P2: there is something that begins to exist.

I think we all agree that this is true (although there is some difficulty with it in the B theory of time).

So, take something that begins to exist. It has at least one cause for it beginning to exist.

Now, look at that cause. Either it begins to exist or it doesn't. If it does begin to exist, it has a cause for its beginning.

At this point, there are *three* possibilities:

1. There is an infinite regress of causes: in this everything in the sequence has a cause and begins to exist.

2. There is a loop of causality: this is where we have a situation where the causal sequence loops back and we have some object that is caused by some sequence that it, in turn, causes.

3. There is some cause that does not begin to exist.

For the argument to proceed, we need to eliminate 1 and 2 from consideration and go into more detail in 3.

At this point, NOBODY has given a sound argument against 1. From what I have seen, nobody has even given a valid argument against 1. So this remains a possibility.

As for 2, we have an *assumption* that such loops cannot occur, but I have yet to see any argument concerning this point. It is generally seen that cases like 2 lead to some paradoxes, however (say, someone going back in time to kill their grandfather).

As for 3, the first thing I notice is that it *doesn't* prove that there is a first cause. All it shows is that there is a cause that does not begin to exist. Whether that cause that does not begin is uncaused is not addressed.

So far, the *best* we can say (if 1 and 2 are eliminated) is that there is a cause that does not begin to exist. We do NOT know that this unbeginning cause is uncaused, though. If it *is* caused, we can continue the argument and either get an infinite regress, a loop, or, eventually an uncaused, unbeginning cause.

The next issue is whether this deserves to be called a 'first cause'.

For this, there is a further issue:

Q1: can there be more than one unbeginning, uncaused cause?

Again, this possiblity is not addressed, but because MOST things that begin have more than one cause, the expectation would be that there would be many, perhaps infinitely many such uncaused, unbeginning, causes.

I have yet to see this possibility addressed either.

In sum, the first cause argument fails in the following ways:

1. It fails to show an infinite regress is impossible.

2. It fails to show a loop of causes is impossible.

3. It fails to show any uncaused unbeginning cause is unique.

This is the case even *if* we agree that P1 is true. And *that* is still not settled.

 

[night912]

When you back in caused beings, it is only logical that there is a first cause.

Claiming that it's logical doesn't mean that it's logical.

It is not "that cause is the first cause", but that there is a first cause.

Asserting that there's a first cause without showing that the is in fact, the first cause, is nothing more than a bald assertion.

Your statement is contradicting.

Claiming that my statement is contradicting without showing how it's contradicting, doesn't mean anything.

Your argument is missing the connection between something with a beginning has a cause and that there's a first cause. You didn't address that poinf that I made.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes .. that's interesting.
You speak about an infinite past, which can be represented as a straight line with infinite length.
The diameter of a circle is a straight line, and you imply that there is no such thing as an infinite circle.. hmm

An infinite line is not the diameter of any circle.

What a wonderful example, not that I disagree.
..but you are showing your true colours. [ you have no respect for the Bible ]

it is an example of circular reasoning.

In any case, it is pedantic to suggest that there might not be a first cause, and that there could be an infinite amount of causes.

Not at all. it is possible there is an infinite regress. It is possible that there is an uncaused cause. It is possible there are MANY uncaused causes.

If you think that it is likely, then you carry on with your hypothesis.

I see it as more likely than the alternative. By far.

 

[firedragon]

Why?

Finally you ask a question. You should practice this more often.

Lets see if you have the heart to engage with argumentation without ad hominem.

An infinite regress is generally argued because the belief that causes are infinitely dependent on dependent causes; it is impossible to arrive at a first principle or cause. right? This in philosophy is called Homunculus. This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing. It is fallacious reasoning to accept any explanation that creates this kind of endless loop. Lets say all kinds of beings have an infinite number of causes that never ends in the past, and it will never end in the future, today is an analysis day, and at this moment, that ad infinitum has ended right now, and the next moment is the beginning of another at infinitum, that means there is a beginning and and end to this, which means the proposition of an ad infinitum past or future is fallacious right now.

When you refer to an infinite, do you refer to a true or possible? An original true infinite set of integers has a proper subset of even numbers which has an equivalent number of members as the original true infinite set. So a true infinite is thought of as a determinate whole with an infinite number of members, different to a possible infinite which never gets to an infinity, although it increases forever. At any given time, as in right now, a possibility of an infinite is actually finite. Done. Its over. Thus, the infinity in its case is finite. If you wish to pursue it, it is a contradiction. Just a tad bit for you.

 

[Polymath257]

Whatever you wish to define them to be, as in mathematical representation.

I am a mathematician. I don't have trouble dealing with infinite objects. I do so every day, professionally.

The main difference between an infinite and a finite set is that an infinite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

if you don't understand the terminology, just ask. I can explain in detail.

 

[firedragon]

Claiming that my statement is contradicting without showing how it's contradicting, doesn't mean anything.

If you do understand that first cannot be second, you will understand the contradiction.

Again.

1st is not 2nd.

 

[Polymath257]

Finally you ask a question. You should practice this more often.

Lets see if you have the heart to engage with argumentation without ad hominem.

An infinite regress is generally argued because the belief that causes are infinitely dependent on dependent causes; it is impossible to arrive at a first principle or cause. right? This in philosophy is called Homunculus. This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing. It is fallacious reasoning to accept any explanation that creates this kind of endless loop. Lets say all kinds of beings have an infinite number of causes that never ends in the past, and it will never end in the future, today is an analysis day, and at this moment, that ad infinitum has ended right now, and the next moment is the beginning of another at infinitum, that means there is a beginning and and end to this, which means the proposition of an ad infinitum past or future is fallacious right now.

When you refer to an infinite, do you refer to a true or possible? An original true infinite set of integers has a proper subset of even numbers which has an equivalent number of members as the original true infinite set. So a true infinite is thought of as a determinate whole with an infinite number of members, different to a possible infinite which never gets to an infinity, although it increases forever. At any given time, as in right now, a possibility of an infinite is actually finite. Done. Its over. Thus, the infinity in its case is finite. If you wish to pursue it, it is a contradiction. Just a tad bit for you.

Just as a note: when I mention infinity, I mean actual (true) infinity.

So, the set of natural numbers is a truly infinite set. The set of real numbers is a set of larger cardinality than the set of natural numbers. Both are infinite, but one is a larger infinity.

 

[Polymath257]

Finally you ask a question. You should practice this more often.

Lets see if you have the heart to engage with argumentation without ad hominem.

An infinite regress is generally argued because the belief that causes are infinitely dependent on dependent causes; it is impossible to arrive at a first principle or cause. right? This in philosophy is called Homunculus. This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing. It is fallacious reasoning to accept any explanation that creates this kind of endless loop. Lets say all kinds of beings have an infinite number of causes that never ends in the past, and it will never end in the future, today is an analysis day, and at this moment, that ad infinitum has ended right now, and the next moment is the beginning of another at infinitum, that means there is a beginning and and end to this, which means the proposition of an ad infinitum past or future is fallacious right now.

Which only means you use an outdated notion of infinity as something that is not bounded.

Yes, the set of negative integers has 0 as an upper bound. And the set of positive integers has 0 as a lower bound. Both are infinite sets.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[firedragon]

Which only means you use an outdated notion of infinity as something that is not bounded.

Yes, the set of negative integers has 0 as an upper bound. And the set of positive integers has 0 as a lower bound. Both are infinite sets.

Where is the contradiction?

Wow. Again, your tribalism in act. So affected.

Poly. You did not even try to understand that argument. Thats the reason you did not understand the contradiction. Please read it once more, and I am sure you are expert enough since you keep claiming you are a mathematician as if you are THE AUTHORITY, you will know.

Nice.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. An infinite past is impossible.

Prove it.

Try not to do your ad hominem.

If you want to really discuss why an infinite past as you put it is impossible just start that conversation without any baggage or your "infinite" attempts at ad hominem. Just open that conversation with a logical proposition. I do not think its difficult.[/QUOTE]

OK: I disagree that an infinite past is impossible.

All that is required is a past that does not begin. If that is the case, then an infinite past is the case.

 

[firedragon]

Prove it.

Oh yes your highness. I submit to your Godly order my liege.

Poly. You should know that as you yourself claimed in this thread, you are no authority to make orders. You are no God.

Read up anyway. And try a bit of humility.

 

[Polymath257]

Wow. Again, your tribalism in act. So affected.

Poly. You did not even try to understand that argument. Thats the reason you did not understand the contradiction. Please read it once more, and I am sure you are expert enough since you keep claiming you are a mathematician as if you are THE AUTHORITY, you will know..

Oh, I read it and understood it. I also know that it is based on a definition of 'infinity' that is outdated: that infinite sets cannot be bounded. That is simply wrong.

Please detail the contradiction.

We have that the past ends now and the future begins now. Both are infinite in extent.

Now, precisely what is the contradiction. be precise and clear.

 

[firedragon]

Just as a note: when I mention infinity, I mean actual (true) infinity.

Ah so that's why you said paradoxes are true.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh yes your highness. I submit to your Godly order my liege.

Poly. You should know that as you yourself claimed in this thread, you are no authority to make orders. You are no God.

Read up anyway. And try a bit of humility.

If you don't support your claim, then you have failed in your argument.

You need to prove that an infinite past is *impossible* for your argument to work.

You have not proven this. You haven't given any sound reason to believe it to be the case.

All you have done is made a bald claim.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah so that's why you said paradoxes are true.

Paradoxes about the infinite are often statements that are true that are merely counter-intuitive *at first*.

I did NOT say that *all* paradoxes are true. But veridical paradoxes are.

 

[firedragon]

We have that the past ends now and the future begins now. Both are infinite in extent.

So one infinity past, and another infinity in the future, two infinities or one infinity?

Since of course you being a mathematical guru know very well there cannot be two but one, it is an absurd proposition. An ordered set cannot be used to blindly or dogmatically cover up a finite temporal regress. You know it.

 

[Polymath257]

That is purely semantics. It boils down to the same thing.

I disagree here. Being uncaused and being self-caused are distinct things.

We are not really discussing the possibiliy of an infinite universe in time, we are discussing an infinite chain of causes .

Yes. The chain itself is not caused. Only the links in the chain.

The notion of an infinite past *has* been brought up.