The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

Of course you are. Since the beginning of this thread, till now. You have called it by word a "we", been calling a "we" repeatedly a "we", and you are still at it.

You defended an absurd logic of "all toasters are made of Gold", and I have asked you a dozen time (figuratively, not infinitely) to justify that premise, and you are very conveniently avoiding that question because you know that you jumped into defend your "we" group blindly.

Justify "all toasters are made of Gold". Go ahead.

Read the post that had that originally. Then see how you misunderstood.

 

[KWED]

That has been explained

Not by you, it hasn't.
You are the one claiming that asking "where did god come from" is dumb, so you need to explain why it is dumb.

One can stablish that X is thd Cause if "Y" even if you cant explain where did X came from .

But we still assume X came from somewhere.

For example you can conclude that a virus is the cause of your symptoms even if you csnt explain where did that virus xame from.

Are you claiming that viruses have always existed and had no cause? Because if you are not, your analogy is useless.

 

[Polymath257]

What does that mean?
If it's possible to have an infinite line, then its possible that it could be the diameter of a circle .. hence an infinite circle.

Nope. A circle is a very particular type of curve. By definition, all circles have a center.

It iis NOT possible (in the Euclidean plane, mind you) for an infinite line to be the diameter of a circle.

Keep telling yourself that. There is no first cause.
Everything is just one big merry-go-round

I don't need to tell myself that. I have studied the subject and have used reason and logic to arrive at my conclusions.

The first cause argument is full of holes. The widest is that it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of an infinite regression.

 

[KWED]

the universe probably has a beginning.

So you accept that the universe may not have had a beginning.
Therefore you accept that the initial premises of the CA are flawed.
Glad we sorted that out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Both are infinite, but one is a larger infinity.

It depends how you define "infinite". Nothing can be larger than infinity, as in infinity meaning the largest real number. Well, it isn't a number .. nor is zero.
Concepts in mathematics of larger and smaller infinities are for convenience.

 

[KWED]

Sure if there are other alternavives and you show that such alternatives are better than the conclusion of tje KCA you would be justified in rejecting the KCA.

Will you ever accept your burden proof and provide such alternatives?

You have admitted that the universe may not have had a beginning. Therefore the CA falls apart.
QED.

 

[KWED]

I find it curious if people think that the afterlife is eternal while claiming that the universe can’t be.

It's the classic special pleading of the religionist.
"Everything must have a cause, except god"
"Nothing can exist infinitely, except god"
"Something can't come from nothing, except when god does it".

 

[KWED]

One is real, the other imaginary. Not the same.

There, fixed that for ya!

 

[KWED]

Correction, it is an unsound philosophical argument.

The "unsound" is tautologically redundant in that sentence.

 

[Polymath257]

It depends how you define "infinite". Nothing can be larger than infinity, as in infinity meaning the largest real number. Well, it isn't a number .. nor is zero.
Concepts in mathematics of larger and smaller infinities are for convenience.

No, infinity is NOT a real number. It *can* be a cardinal number. But most cardinal numbers are not real numbers. yes, Zero is a number. It is even a cardinal number.

All it means to be infinite is to NOT be finite. To be finite means it can be put into one to one correspondence with some counting number.

Let me give an example:

The set of even natural (counting) numbers, {2,4,6,8,10,..} is an infinite set.

But the set of ALL natural numbers {1,2,3,4,5..} is a larger set that is also infinite.

It turns out that even though the second of these is 'larger' in the sense of being a proper superset of the first, the two can be put into one to one correspondence, so they have the same cardinality.

All that means is that there is more than one way to compare sizes. Cardinality is actually a very weak way to do so.

But, there are larger *cardinalities* than that for the set of natural numbers. For example, the set of real (decimal) numbers has a larger infinite cardinality than the set of natural numbers.

It is even possible to show that there is an infinite collection of different sizes of infinite sets.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It iis NOT possible (in the Euclidean plane, mind you) for an infinite line to be the diameter of a circle.

Then it is not possible to have an infinite line.
You can't have it both ways.

What happens to a circle with a large diameter, as we increase its diameter towards infinity? When does the circle actually cease to exist?
In any case, it's the concept that I refer to. It is not easy to imagine infinite concepts.
Beware, your arrogance might be blinding you.

I don't need to tell myself that. I have studied the subject and have used reason and logic to arrive at my conclusions.

What subject?
There are many subjects in the world. I don't think that any of us have
a full "data set".

 

[KWED]

It is still a fact that one can stablish that X is the cause of Y even if you dont know the cause of X

Could you give another example? The virus one failed because we know how viruses occur, that they follow natural, observable processes. When an unknown virus is detected, we do not simply claim it has always existed through an infinite past, with no cause.

The CA claims that everything has a cause.
It then claims that not everything has a cause.
You need to resolve this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, infinity is NOT a real number. It *can* be a cardinal number. But most cardinal numbers are not real numbers. yes, Zero is a number. It is even a cardinal number.

Yes, I know all of that. It is all about language, definitions as a form of communication and manipulation.
The language of mathematics does not equal the language of English, for example.

 

[KWED]

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

So god caused himself?

 

[KWED]

Yes. An infinite past is impossible.

So you accept that god had a beginning.
So what caused that beginning?

 

[KWED]

Read up anyway. And try a bit of humility.

 

[KWED]

Do you not understand this?

Can you stop being so entertaining. I have stuff to do?
Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

Then it is not possible to have an infinite line.
You can't have it both ways.

An infinite circle requires an infinite radius. But infinity is not a real number (it is a cardinal number).

An infinite line is simply one that is connected and unbounded at both ends.

What happens to a circle with a large diameter, as we increase its diameter towards infinity? When does the circle actually cease to exist?

It doesn't. There are circles of arbitrarily large diameter. But the limiting curve is not a circle.

In any case, it's the concept that I refer to. It is not easy to imagine infinite concepts.
Beware, your arrogance might be blinding you.

It isn't easy *at first*. But with practice and logic, it becomes easier over time.

It isn't arrogance. it is simply experience. I have been working with infinite sets on a daily basis for the last 40+ years.

What subject?

Mathematics. Set theory. Aspects of infinite sets, including countability and uncountability.

These are subjects that are taught to undergraduates.

There are many subjects in the world. I don't think that any of us have
a full "data set".

There are many questions about infinite sets that are unresolved. But we aren't even close to those in this discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I know all of that. It is all about language, definitions as a form of communication and manipulation.
The language of mathematics does not equal the language of English, for example.

It is about precision of language. One of the historical problems dealing with infinities is that the appropriate language wasn't discovered until fairly recently (about 150 years ago).

 

[Polymath257]

What happens to a circle with a large diameter, as we increase its diameter towards infinity? When does the circle actually cease to exist?

I'm going to address this in more detail.

You are talking about what is known as a limiting process. Even when the limit exists (and it may not), the limit may not have the same properties as the individuals.

In the case of a circle of increasing diameter, the specifics depend on what happens to the center of the circle.

If the center stays the same and the radius increases, there simply is no limiting curve (this is not at all uncommon). There is simply no curve that the circles are getting closer and closer to.

If the center moves in such a way that some point is on all of the circles, the limiting curve is a straight line. This is a case where the it does not have the properties of the individuals. Each individual is a circle, but the limit is not.

Again, it is common for limits to not have the same properties of the individuals in the sequence defining the limit. In fact, this is a common construction in math for unusual behavior.

For those situations where the limit *does* have the same property as the individuals, we say that the property is 'continuous' with respect to that limit.

In general, when taking limits, it is necessary to be very careful. Some limits don't exist at all (there is nothing that things are getting close to). Others, the limit has different properties than the terms (maybe even different cardinality, volume, etc), and sometimes the property is continuous and the limits do have the same property.

Yes, it is possible to take a limit of *some* sequences of circles and get a line. but that doesn't make the line a circle.

If you want to do projective geometry, we *can* have 'lines at infinity'. But that is NOT the same context as Euclidean geometry, which does not have such lines.

There are more possibilities than you have imagined in your philosophies.