The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

Why wouldn't it be a beginning in the sense needed for the First Cause Argument?
This has nothing to do with the North Pole. I'm not talking about the beginning of the surface of the Earth. I'm talking about the beginning of the Earth as a whole.

The point is that the surface of the earth is an analogy for the way general relativity treats space-time. Time doesn't 'flow' (there is no universal 'now', or any other universal moment of simultaneity, even in special relativity). Time is a direction (actually an observer dependant direction) through the manifold like south is a direction along the surface of the earth. Since there is no other concept of time that applies, the idea that it (the manifold) had a beginning (in the sense that the surface of the earth had a beginning because it is embedded in space-time) doesn't make sense.

The inflation theory still uses the 13.8 billion year age of the universe. You've quoted that same piece a few times now. I don't want you to feel like you are just repeating yourself. Do you have reason to accept him as representing the main theory of science?

13.8 billion years ago is as far as our current theories take us, then we know that they don't work because we'd need a theory that combines quantum effects with general relativity which we don't have. I'm aware of this from multiple sources. Matt Strassler is a working physicist who also writes an accessible blog for the public, so is convenient. The problem with many pop science sources (especially short web pages) is that many of the authors (as Strassler says) have got the idea of a singularity stuck in their minds.

However, if you read many more carefully, some do point out the problem, even wiki has this:

"The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) Big Bang cosmology immediately after the event which began the known universe. During this epoch, the temperature and average energies within the universe were so high that everyday subatomic particles could not form, and even the four fundamental forces that shape the universe — gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force — were combined and formed one fundamental force. Little is understood about physics at this temperature; different hypotheses propose different scenarios. Traditional big bang cosmology predicts a gravitational singularity before this time, but this theory relies on the theory of general relativity, which is thought to break down for this epoch due to quantum effects.

In inflationary models of cosmology, times before the end of inflation (roughly 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang) do not follow the same timeline as in traditional big bang cosmology. Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are generally speculative and fall under the umbrella of "New Physics". Examples include the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string theory landscape, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe."

-- Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia (my emphasis)​

Is it your assertion that the truth of the premises is unattainable?

I'm saying they are currently unknown and that we have very good reasons to doubt them (as myself and others have pointed out).

This is a statement that you can't simply make. You really would need to prove that.

The premises are about the nature of the universe and causality, so in the domain of science, so you're never going to get absolute proof. What we do have is evidence that suggests they are, at best, highly questionable.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is your question? Try not to propagate other peoples nit picks, ask your own question. Use your own reasoning. Ask your question.

First it was a strawman quantum fluctuation...

So my question (and I was the first to raise this in #10) is why do you think that is a straw man?

It is a direct counter example for P1, in what way does it attack a different argument to the one you actually presented?

An unsound argument is when you have false premises.

No, soundness (at least in deductive logic such as a categorical syllogism, which is the form of the argument you presented) requires true premises. So if the premises are questionable, unknown, or unfalsifiable guesses, then the deduction fails because the argument is unsound

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true." -- Soundness - Wikipedia

"A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." -- Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises." -- Validity and Invalidity, Soundness and Unsoundness - Stanford University

Also, as noted here, you cannot separate the assessment of soundness from the subject matter of the argument, what is why you cannot say this is just philosophy, because your premises in the domain of science:

"If a deductive argument is to succeed in establishing the truth of its conclusion, two quite distinct conditions must be met: first, the conclusion must really follow from the premises—i.e., the deduction of the conclusion from the premises must be logically correct—and, second, the premises themselves must be true. An argument meeting both these conditions is called sound. Of these two conditions, the logician as such is concerned only with the first; the second, the determination of the truth or falsity of the premises, is the task of some special discipline or of common observation appropriate to the subject matter of the argument." -- formal logic

 

[firedragon]

So my question (and I was the first to raise this in #10) is why do you think that is a straw man?

Because the argument is "first cause". Not if quantum fluctuations happen or not. It is a common argument found everywhere and I know that but its an irrelevant argument. That is not the argument I made, so though you propagated someone else's googled common argument, he made a strawman. You just followed through.

No, soundness (at least in deductive logic such as a categorical syllogism, which is the form of the argument you presented) requires true premises. So if the premises are questionable, unknown, or unfalsifiable guesses, then the deduction fails because the argument is unsound

Cmon. Read what an unsound deduction is. You will know better. Dont repeat arguments other people make in this thread so blindly. Try to make your own after thorough consideration. This one, any entrant in logic will easily know. Unbelievable.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because the argument is "first cause".

Except that it doesn't even mention it. Regardless, that isn't an answer.

Not if quantum fluctuations happen or not.

Your first premiss was "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning." Pairs of particles appearing and then disappearing in a vacuum do not have causes, hence we have a counterexample and can conclude that the premiss is false (at least as far as current knowledge goes).

It is a common argument found everywhere and I know that but its an irrelevant argument.

It undermines your first premiss, how can it possibly be irrelevant?

That is not the argument I made...

It was about your first premiss. I really don't understand how you can possibly think that a counterexample to your very first premiss can possibly be irrelevant or a straw man.

...so though you propagated someone else's googled common argument, he made a strawman.

Another ad hominem and also untrue.

Read what an unsound deduction is.

I have done. Multiple times. I also gave you several references. I suggest you take your own advice.

Dont repeat arguments other people make in this thread so blindly. Try to make your own after thorough consideration.

Just because several people are telling you the same thing, doesn't mean they are following blindly. It could mean that they just know more about the subject than you do.

This one, any entrant in logic will easily know. Unbelievable.

I've given you multiple references. You want one from an introductory textbook on the subject too? Okay (should also clear up your confusion over the golden toaster time machines):-

The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true, proves or demonstrates (these being the same thing) its conclusion. However, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin with the fundamental concept of deductive logic, validity. An argument is said to be valid if it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. This may sound complicated, but it really isn’t. An example of a valid argument will help:

Premise: Jimmy Carter was president immediately before Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was president immediately after Bill Clinton.
Conclusion: Jimmy Carter was president before George W. Bush.

As you can see, it’s impossible for this premise to be true and this conclusion to be false. So, the argument is valid. However, you may have noticed that the premise contains a mistake. Jimmy Carter was not president immediately before Bill Clinton. George H. W. Bush was president immediately before Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, even though the premise of the above argument is not true, the argument is still valid, because it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. Another way to say this: If the premise were true, the conclusion could not be false—and that’s what “valid” means.

Now, when the premise of a valid argument is true, there is a word for it. In that case, the argument is said to be sound. Here is an example of a sound argument:

Premise: Bill Clinton is taller than George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter is shorter than George W. Bush.
Conclusion: Therefore, Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter.

This argument is sound because it is valid and the premise is true. As you can see, if an argument is sound, then its conclusion has been proved.

-- Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2008). Critical Thinking (9th ed.). McGraw Hill Higher Education.​

 

[firedragon]

Except that it doesn't even mention it. Regardless, that isn't an answer.

Topic heading. Maybe you should read again and understand it prior to getting into arguments.

Except that it doesn't even mention it. Regardless, that isn't an answer.

Your first premiss was "Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning." Pairs of particles appearing and then disappearing in a vacuum do not have causes, hence we have a counterexample and can conclude that the premiss is false (at least as far as current knowledge goes).


It undermines your first premiss, how can it possibly be irrelevant?


It was about your first premiss. I really don't understand how you can possibly think that a counterexample to your very first premiss can possibly be irrelevant or a straw man.


Another ad hominem and also untrue.


I have done. Multiple times. I also gave you several references. I suggest you take your own advice.


Just because several people are telling you the same thing, doesn't mean they are following blindly. It could mean that they just know more about the subject than you do.


I've given you multiple references. You want one from an introductory textbook on the subject too? Okay (should also clear up your confusion over the golden toaster time machines):-

The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true, proves or demonstrates (these being the same thing) its conclusion. However, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin with the fundamental concept of deductive logic, validity. An argument is said to be valid if it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. This may sound complicated, but it really isn’t. An example of a valid argument will help:

Premise: Jimmy Carter was president immediately before Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was president immediately after Bill Clinton.
Conclusion: Jimmy Carter was president before George W. Bush.

As you can see, it’s impossible for this premise to be true and this conclusion to be false. So, the argument is valid. However, you may have noticed that the premise contains a mistake. Jimmy Carter was not president immediately before Bill Clinton. George H. W. Bush was president immediately before Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, even though the premise of the above argument is not true, the argument is still valid, because it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. Another way to say this: If the premise were true, the conclusion could not be false—and that’s what “valid” means.

Now, when the premise of a valid argument is true, there is a word for it. In that case, the argument is said to be sound. Here is an example of a sound argument:

Premise: Bill Clinton is taller than George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter is shorter than George W. Bush.
Conclusion: Therefore, Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter.

This argument is sound because it is valid and the premise is true. As you can see, if an argument is sound, then its conclusion has been proved.

-- Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2008). Critical Thinking (9th ed.). McGraw Hill Higher Education.​

.​

Lol. Read up a bit more.

 

[ratiocinator]

Topic heading. Maybe you should read again and understand it prior to getting into arguments.
...
Lol. Read up a bit more.

Back to running away and pretending it's everybody else.

I've done what I can (as have others here) to try and get anything remotely like a serious answer from you and all you do is resort to this kind of thing.

Since you didn't address any of my points, I'll just assume that you can't, but do have another go if you want....

 

[firedragon]

Back to running away and pretending it's everybody else.

I've done what I can (as have others here) to try and get anything remotely like a serious answer from you and all you do is resort to this kind of thing.

Since you didn't address any of my points, I'll just assume that you can't, but do have another go if you want....

Thanks for that ad hominem. Good for you. Avoiding your repeated arguments repeating what other people say is running away for you probably because that's what you do. When you say things as cheap as that, you will get it back mate. Lol. Thats not an argument.

Anyway, can you explain how quantum fluctuation within the universe could take place without the universe existing?

THanks.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thanks for that ad hominem. Good for you. Avoiding your repeated arguments repeating what other people say is running away for you probably because that's what you do. When you say things as cheap as that, you will get it back mate. Lol. Thats not an argument.

Wow, just wow. I've given you lots of detail and multiple references, asked endlessly for you to explain your bare assertions, only to get cheap, banal comments like "read up", "you don't understand", "read the OP", and most recently, "Lol. Read up a bit more.", and you accuse me of running away and making cheap comments! Not to mention the baseless accusation that I'm just blindly repeating what other people have said.

There was no argument in my reply because there was nothing of substance in your response. Putting a word in the title doesn't mean it forms part of the actual argument, I could give the title "First cause argument" to a recipe for tomato soup. Your only other comment was "Lol. Read up a bit more."

Anyway, can you explain how quantum fluctuation within the universe could take place without the universe existing?

Straw man.

Now, if I was going to behave like you have done, I'd just leave it at that and possibly tell you to reread what I said (with good reason, see below) or that you didn't understand.

However, I'll try for a bit longer to get something substantive from you, so I'll explain. That is a straw man because it's not a claim I actually made*. I made the point about quantum fluctuations to illustrate that the principle in your first premiss does not universally apply. In fact the very first point I made about P1 was "Questionable even within the universe" (#10).

What's more you have exactly the same problem with causality, which was also one of the first points I made (from #10 again) "The first problem with this is that it is trying to generalise what we observe in the universe to the universe as a whole, risking the fallacy of composition. Causality (to the extent it applies) appears to be a property of the structure of the universe, not something that can necessarily be applied to its own existence."

You have an exactly similar problem in explaining how causality can possibly apply without the universe (hence space-time) existing.

* Note however, that it has been suggested: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[firedragon]

Wow, just wow. I've given you lots of detail and multiple references, asked endlessly for you to explain your bare assertions, only to get cheap, banal comments like "read up", "you don't understand", "read the OP", and most recently, "Lol. Read up a bit more.", and you accuse me of running away and making cheap comments! Not to mention the baseless accusation that I'm just blindly repeating what other people have said.

There was no argument in my reply because there was nothing of substance in your response. Putting a word in the title doesn't mean it forms part of the actual argument, I could give the title "First cause argument" to a recipe for tomato soup. Your only other comment was "Lol. Read up a bit more."


Straw man.

Now, if I was going to behave like you have done, I'd just leave it at that and possibly tell you to reread what I said (with good reason, see below) or that you didn't understand.

However, I'll try for a bit longer to get something substantive from you, so I'll explain. That is a straw man because it's not a claim I actually made*. I made the point about quantum fluctuations to illustrate that the principle in your first premiss does not universally apply. In fact the very first point I made about P1 was "Questionable even within the universe" (#10).

What's more you have exactly the same problem with causality, which was also one of the first points I made (from #10 again) "The first problem with this is that it is trying to generalise what we observe in the universe to the universe as a whole, risking the fallacy of composition. Causality (to the extent it applies) appears to be a property of the structure of the universe, not something that can necessarily be applied to its own existence."

You have an exactly similar problem in explaining how causality can possibly apply without the universe (hence space-time) existing.

* Note however, that it has been suggested: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

You ignored the question. This was your repeatedly repeated apologetic borrowed from another in this very thread.

Obviously you cant answer it so you moved to another topic. You will find the answer if you read up. Somewhere.

 

[ratiocinator]

You ignored the question.

That's simply untrue. I didn't ignore the only question you asked in your post, I explained exactly why it was a straw man - something you have so often accused myself and others of without any attempt at all to explain why. I even went beyond that a linked to a paper that said how it might actually apply regardless of it having nothing to do with my original point. Your double standards are truly breathtaking.

This was your repeatedly repeated apologetic borrowed from another in this very thread.

Your question was about quantum fluctuations, which is a subject that I was the first to bring up here (#10). If you're talking about your argument not being about first cause, it was a good point, originally made by somebody else, but one which you've just run away from.

Obviously you cant [sic] answer it so you moved to another topic.

Again, I did answer the only question you asked and you've totally ignored the answer.

You will find the answer if you read up. Somewhere.

Another bare assertion with no reasoning and no reference. You have (yet again) totally ignored every single substantive point I made.

 

[firedragon]

That's simply untrue. I didn't ignore the only question you asked in your post, I explained exactly why it was a straw man - something you have so often accused myself and others of without any attempt at all to explain why. I even went beyond that a linked to a paper that said how it might actually apply regardless of it having nothing to do with my original point. Your double standards are truly breathtaking.


Your question was about quantum fluctuations, which is a subject that I was the first to bring up here (#10). If you're talking about your argument not being about first cause, it was a good point, originally made by somebody else, but one which you've just run away from.


Again, I did answer the only question you asked and you've totally ignored the answer.


Another bare assertion with no reasoning and no reference. You have (yet again) totally ignored every single substantive point I made.

No. You did not answer the question. Please read the question once more and understand it.

 

[Polymath257]

Does the universe "exist"? Or is the term "exist" also too vague?

The universe, as a spacetime manifold, 'just is'. It doesn't 'become' because time is part of the universe.

I would encourage you to reflect on who the "you" is in the phrase "If you move".
In the example I gave, the guests were moving themselves. "you" were not moving them. They claimed to be forced out, but you know that you can fit them all by simply telling them to all move back to where they were.

What does it matter who is saying where to move? The point is that it is possible to move to open up a space, or even infinitely many spaces by the guests moving appropriately.

You say there is no contradiction that it is just properties of infinity. Then you should explain how to resolve the seeming contradiction or "paradox". Other paradoxes can be explained.

What is the paradox? That the Hotel is full and that the guests can still move so as to open up a space? That is almost the defining property (according to Dirichlet) of being infinite.

"Each event is explained by the previous one" is exactly a regress of explanation.

I accept that you don't think everything has an explanation. The foundation of modern mathematics is axiomatic.

It's more than that. Either there is an infinite regress of explanations, or there is something that cannot be explained (or, technically, there is a loop of explanations).

The Axiom of Infinity asserts that there exists a set that contains the natural numbers.

I is a superset of the natural numbers using the successor function. The natural numbers still need to be extracted from that set, which is again done by the successor function. The natural numbers are defined using the Axiom of Extensionality and the Axiom of Induction. The successor function (same as used in the Axiom of Infinity) is used to define the natural numbers. The set of natural numbers being the smallest set satisfying the successor function. As they say, the devil is in the details. No successor function? No natural numbers.

Yes, it is a closure property, not a 'building up' property. Closure under the successor function is one of the defining properties of the set of natural numbers.

Notice that in your definition above, there is no infinite process. The number 2, for example, is not seen in the definition. Only 0 (in the form of the empty set) appears. Also, the assumption is that there is such a set with these properties.

I would point out that without this axiom, the natural numbers can be 'built up' in the sense that every individual natural number can be constructed and shown to be a 'finite ordinal'. The axiom is about the existence of a set that contains all of these: a completed set all at once.

BTW: you might want to compare the axiom as you gave it to @ratiocinator's signature.

I think that the knowledge of mathematics is very important. We've talked about infinity before. You've made some good posts in other threads, but, for some reason, this topic in particular seems to find us at odds with each other. And I think you just reach too far with what you claim.

I am simply pointing out the basic properties of infinite sets. Like in the Hilbert Hotel, the paradoxes tend to be misunderstandings of how infinite sets differ from finite sets. One basic way is that they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with proper subsets of themselves.

I didn't think he was making that strong of an assertion!
!!!

Fair enough. So is there an issue with the universe... being? existing? Is it a chicken and egg problem?

I wonder if it is an existential issue with the being of the universe. Perhaps, from your point of view the universe is purely conceptual and doesn't have real existence.

It's more that in my view the universe doesn't begin. And that is because time itself is a property in the universe. Time may have a start, but that is not the same as the universe beginning.

In it's most general form, a cause is an answer to a why question.
Of course, science, in general, gives answers to how questions. Very inconvenient.

What makes you think that all why questions have answers?

Why wouldn't it be a beginning in the sense needed for the First Cause Argument?
This has nothing to do with the North Pole. I'm not talking about the beginning of the surface of the Earth. I'm talking about the beginning of the Earth as a whole.

It is an *analogy*. In this, time corresponds to the latitude and the universe corresponds to the surface of the sphere. Longitude represents space.

So, time 'begins' at the South pole, space expands until the equator, then begins to contract. Finally, time ends at the North pole.

Perhaps I misunderstood your explanation. The inflation theory still uses the 13.8 billion year age of the universe. You've quoted that same piece a few times now. I don't want you to feel like you are just repeating yourself. Do you have reason to accept him as representing the main theory of science?

The current expansion started 13.8 billion years ago. Whether it is even meaningful to talk about 'before' that is simply not known. Under most quantum theories of gravity, it is. Under general relativity, it is not.

At this point, it is an open question.

Is it your assertion that the truth of the premises is unattainable? This is a statement that you can't simply make. You really would need to prove that.

For the argument to be sound, those premises need to be verified. But, if anything, we have good evidence that both are actually false.

In other words, nowhere and nowhen.

OK, in that case, there is no space and no time, and thereby no causality. So nothing is 'becoming'.

Nobody claims that the universe 'comes out of' nothing in this sense.

But the universe 'just is' if you take it as spacetime as a whole.

Some people say the universe is an illusion, that it is not real.

Not my position.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You did not answer the question. Please read the question once more and understand it.

Please give details about what aspect of the question was not answered. What do you think was misunderstood?

 

[firedragon]

Please give details about what aspect of the question was not answered. What do you think was misunderstood?

Please pose your own argument if there is any Poly.

 

[Polymath257]

Because the argument is "first cause". Not if quantum fluctuations happen or not. It is a common argument found everywhere and I know that but its an irrelevant argument. That is not the argument I made, so though you propagated someone else's googled common argument, he made a strawman. You just followed through.

Quantum fluctuations are evidence against one of your premises. If that premise is found to be invalid, your argument is unsound. So it is NOT a strawman.

Cmon. Read what an unsound deduction is. You will know better. Dont repeat arguments other people make in this thread so blindly. Try to make your own after thorough consideration. This one, any entrant in logic will easily know. Unbelievable.

A deduction is unsound if the premises are not verified to be true. The existence of quantum fluctuations is relevant to whether one of your premises is true. As such, it is not a strawman since it directly questions one of the things used in your argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Please pose your own argument if there is any Poly.

I am trying to get clarification of what is thought to be the contradiction. The only thing I can see is that the Hotel is 'full', in the sense that every room is occupied, and yet can still accommodate new guests by moving the existing guests around.

Why that is a contradiction is unclear to me. it is simply an aspect of the infinite number of rooms. There are two *different* notions of 'full' implicit here: one that every room is occupied, and the other that there is no way to accommodate new guests if guests can be moved around. Those are *different notions*. And the Hotel shows that they are different. That is not a contradiction.

 

[ratiocinator]

No. You did not answer the question.

False. The only question you asked in the post I was replying to was:

Anyway, can you explain how quantum fluctuation within the universe could take place without the universe existing?

To which my reply was:-

However, I'll try for a bit longer to get something substantive from you, so I'll explain. That is a straw man because it's not a claim I actually made*. I made the point about quantum fluctuations to illustrate that the principle in your first premiss does not universally apply. In fact the very first point I made about P1 was "Questionable even within the universe" (#10).

What's more you have exactly the same problem with causality, which was also one of the first points I made (from #10 again) "The first problem with this is that it is trying to generalise what we observe in the universe to the universe as a whole, risking the fallacy of composition. Causality (to the extent it applies) appears to be a property of the structure of the universe, not something that can necessarily be applied to its own existence."

You have an exactly similar problem in explaining how causality can possibly apply without the universe (hence space-time) existing.

* Note however, that it has been suggested: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

If there is something about that that you don't understand or you feel it has not addressed your point in some way then you'll have to do better than, just banal comments like:-

Please read the question once more and understand it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I made the point about quantum fluctuations to illustrate that the principle in your first premiss does not universally apply. In fact the very first point I made about P1 was "Questionable even within the universe"]

..so things happen without a cause..
..then why do you agree with the reams of prose that ToE spews out, explaining how everything happened?

It can all have happened without a cause, right?

It seems to me that you are quite satisfied with things having a cause, but aren't happy with a "first cause".
Hmm .. I suppose you will suggest some things have a cause, but others don't.
No .. that makes no sense to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know why apologists in this thread are all beginning some kind of band wagon and everyone jumps on it like also-rans.

Perhaps because you've misidentified what is actually happening in this thread. A host of critical thinkers have rejected your argument. Neither of your premises were accepted, because both are just unsupported claims based on how things seemed to Kalam or whoever first advanced that argument. It's a naive perspective. The premises are arrived at through incredulous fallacies - that's how things seem, I can't imagine any other possibility, therefore that's how things are. That's the same fallacy those advancing complexity as an argument for intelligent design offer - it just seems too complex to have assembled itself, therefore it didn't.

And this is all you have - dismissive and condescending comments. Of course they'll all rebut your flawed argument, and in the same way. That's exactly why critical thinking leads to sound conclusions. It is a rigorous manner of thinking constrained by the rules of logic. Just like arithmetic, we expect all skilled adders to come to the same sum, and if one makes a mistake, we expect all of the other adders to identify it. That's the kind of excellent thinking that you describe as above. You don't seem to understand what they're doing, and because of that, you failed to recognize the significance of that consensus of opinion.

I assure you that if I started a thread with an argument I thought was sound, and a dozen skilled critical thinkers all pointed out the same errors, I would be thinking that I am probably wrong. Not you. This also undermine your ethos. Ethos is determined by the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like. In this case, it also includes whether the speaker seems sincere or is trolling. You seem to like to demean and disqualify others, assigning yourself the role of the superior one. That's not working for you.

First it was a strawman quantum fluctuation

I guess you don't know what a strawman is. It's not good for your ethos as somebody presenting an argument.

then it was a "paradox is truth"

And you apparently didn't learn what paradox is, either.

then it was "the OP is not about a first cause"

You got sloppy there and were called on it. You entitled the thread the first cause argument and used the phrase a few times before presenting, but then made an unsound argument for a prior cause for the universe, not a first cause. The prior cause of the universe need not be the first cause. This also hurts your ethos. You need to be rigorous to convince skilled critical thinkers.

and now its an unsound argument not even knowing what an unsound argument is. Amazing. An unsound argument is when you have false premises. No argument in the OP is false.

Your definition is incomplete. Some unsound arguments have true premises. But not yours. Yours begin with unshared premises, assertions that you cannot rigorously defend, premises rejected by multiple posters, beginning on page one of this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

..so things happen without a cause..
..then why do you agree with the reams of prose that ToE spews out, explaining how everything happened?

It can all have happened without a cause, right?

There is a fundamental difference in how the microscopic (quantum) level works and how the macroscopic level works.

That is ultimately because predictability can be found by averaging a lot of random events and Avagadro's number is BIG.

At the level of organisms, the lack of causality due to quantum effects is masked by the large number of subatomic particles involved and that leads to what we generally know of as causality.

A simple example: suppose that a coin is perfectly random (quantum events give this sort of randomness). Then, it is impossible to determine ahead of time the result of any particular coin flip (that is what it means to be random). All that can be determined is the probability of heads or tails.

But, if you flip a trillion coins, the percentage of heads will be very close to 50%. That is predictability. The randomness at the level of coins becomes causality (precise predictability) at the level of trillions of coins.