The first cause argument

[muhammad_isa]

They have literally always been moving. No further explanation is required..

What you mean is that you are claiming it's not necessary for there to be a first cause, as an infinite chain of causes is a rational explanation.
I don't think so. It is merely a ploy to avoid the alternative conclusion that there must be a first cause.

It is not a satisfactory explanation that the universe is responsible for itself, and it meaninglessly causes things to happen eternally without reason.

 

[Polymath257]

What you mean is that you are claiming it's not necessary for there to be a first cause, as an infinite chain of causes is a rational explanation.

Yes, it is *a* possible rational explanation.

I don't think so. It is merely a ploy to avoid the alternative conclusion that there must be a first cause.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out that there are other, quite logical, possibilities that are ignored in the first cause argument.

It seems to me that the rejection of the possibility of an infinite regress is a ploy to make sure the first cause argument goes through.

I would also point out that nothing in the usual first cause argument is actually an argument for an uncaused cause, not a *first* cause. And it does not prove that there is only *one* uncaused cause. There is nothing that says that there could not be 2 or a million, or even infinitely many uncaused causes. And, in regard to any of these being 'first', there is nothing to show that the length of causal chains is bounded at all (even if they are all individually finite).

It is not a satisfactory explanation that the universe is responsible for itself, and it meaninglessly causes things to happen eternally without reason.

Not sure what 'responsibility' has to do with this. Again, my position is that the universe is uncaused. In fact, I don't see it as reasonable to even have a 'cause' of the universe (in the large--a multiverse would be the uncaused existence if such makes sense).

I'm also not sure why this would be 'meaningless'. Both responsibility and meaning are limited to how conscious beings such as ourselves relate to the universe around us. WE create meaning and responsibility. There is nothing inherent in things that make them meaningful.

 

[Kfox]

If you read the post fully you will understand.

I did read it carefully; which is why I came to the conclusion I did. If you disagree with me, please explain.

What do you mean "being of choice"?
How could that being not have a beginning?

I have never heard this type of argumentation. Thus please explain if you dont mind.

If you believe God to be the first cause, you will make an exception for God.. If you believe matter and energy has always existed, you will make an exception for Matter and energy. Whatever you believe has always existed, an exception can be made according to the argument.

 

[firedragon]

If you believe God to be the first cause, you will make an exception for God..

If you read the OP, I have said that this topic is not about God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Can you give any example of a per se cause?

OK. I 'll give an example of per se causal series from the link I provided if you haven't already read it.

Let's say we see an illumined room in the evening. The property in question is illumination. We see that the room is illumined by moon. But moon is not the ultimate cause. We know the moon does not possess the power of illumination inherently. It can just reflect light not produce it. The moon acts as an intermediary (instrumental) cause in this causal series.

That is what makes a causal series (x) -> (y) -> (z) per se: (x) must borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). This is clearly the case with the moon deriving light from the sun to illumine the bedroom. (Pat Flynn)
​

Now let's compare this with per accidens causal series.

Whereas in a causal series (x) -> (y) -> (z) which is per accidens, (x) does not need to borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). Think Harry begetting Bob and then Bob begetting John. Once Bob is begotten, Harry becomes irrelevant and can drop out without interruption to the causal series, because Bob has the power inherently to beget John. Bob doesn’t need to borrow the power of begetting from his father Harry in the process of begetting (that would be weird); he (Bob) has it in virtue of being a biologically well-functioning male. The point? Because members in a per accidens causal series have the inherent power to produce the effect under consideration, Aquinas grants that we need not trace to anything more primary, hence he maintains that such a causal series could regress infinitely.

But not so with a per se ordered causal series /... / (same)​

 

[muhammad_isa]

Both responsibility and meaning are limited to how conscious beings such as ourselves relate to the universe around us. WE create meaning and responsibility. There is nothing inherent in things that make them meaningful.

They are meaningful.
You are not going to start arguing about how there is no such thing as free-will, and how mankind has made it all up, and conclude that mankind having courts of law is a case of "WE created the concept" .. are you?

 

[Kfox]

If you read the OP, I have said that this topic is not about God.

I never said anything about this topic being about God. Go back and read what I said.

 

[firedragon]

I never said anything about this topic being about God. Go back and read what I said.

I understand Kfox. I just said that since you spoke of God. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is to the existence of a first cause.

 

[Kfox]

I understand Kfox. I just said that since you spoke of God. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The argument is to the existence of a first cause.

You took a small snip of what I said, leaving out the rest and gave a false impression of my point due to lack of context. You asked me what I meant and I explained that it includes all people which includes those who believe in God.

 

[firedragon]

You took a small snip of what I said, leaving out the rest and gave a false impression of my point due to lack of context. You asked me what I meant and I explained that it includes all people which includes those who believe in God.

The point is, the equation of God has no place in this thread. No matter what the context is. Hope you understand.

 

[Polymath257]

OK. I 'll give an example of per se causal series from the link I provided if you haven't already read it.

Let's say we see an illumined room in the evening. The property in question is illumination. We see that the room is illumined by moon. But moon is not the ultimate cause. We know the moon does not possess the power of illumination inherently. It can just reflect light not produce it. The moon acts as an intermediary (instrumental) cause in this causal series.

That is what makes a causal series (x) -> (y) -> (z) per se: (x) must borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). This is clearly the case with the moon deriving light from the sun to illumine the bedroom. (Pat Flynn)
​

No, the moon simply reflects light. It is the light, not the sun or the moon, that illuminates the room. The light comes from the sun, reflects off of the moon, and then travels to Earth to illuminate the moon.

If the sun disappeared during the time in which the light travels, the light would *still* illuminate the room even though the sun no longer exists.

The causal series is (sun)-->(moon)--->(room), not, as described, (moon)-->(sun)-->(room).

The sun illuminates the moon, which reflects the light, which then illuminates the room. The moon isn't 'borrowing a power'.

Now let's compare this with per accidens causal series.

Whereas in a causal series (x) -> (y) -> (z) which is per accidens, (x) does not need to borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). Think Harry begetting Bob and then Bob begetting John. Once Bob is begotten, Harry becomes irrelevant and can drop out without interruption to the causal series, because Bob has the power inherently to beget John. Bob doesn’t need to borrow the power of begetting from his father Harry in the process of begetting (that would be weird); he (Bob) has it in virtue of being a biologically well-functioning male. The point? Because members in a per accidens causal series have the inherent power to produce the effect under consideration, Aquinas grants that we need not trace to anything more primary, hence he maintains that such a causal series could regress infinitely.

But not so with a per se ordered causal series /... / (same)​

So Aquinas, as usual, has a messed up analysis. Both are simply causal series.

In both series, a property goes from one thing to another to the final. In the sun, moon, room system, the causal sequence is (sun)->(moon)->(room) and in the descent sequence it it (Harry)->(Bob)->(John).

Just as a terminological issue: it seems to me that the moon's role is the 'accident' and Bob's role is the one inherent in the cause. But of course, both have internal properties that are relevant (the moon's ability to reflect light, for example).

 

[Polymath257]

They are meaningful.
You are not going to start arguing about how there is no such thing as free-will, and how mankind has made it all up, and conclude that mankind having courts of law is a case of "WE created the concept" .. are you?

Free will is a different matter from 'meaning'. Yes, we made up our court system. We created the concept of personal responsibility. We are the ones that create meaning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, we made up our court system. We created the concept of personal responsibility. We are the ones that create meaning.

..and there is no reason for it?
..we just evolved like that, and other creatures didn't?

When we theorise that there could be an infinite amount of causes for why things happen, it implies that all we see is incidental. I rule that out. It is unsatisfactory.

 

[Kfox]

The point is, the equation of God has no place in this thread. No matter what the context is. Hope you understand.

My response was about "theists" people who believe in God. Do references to theists have a place in the thread? If not you might wanna prepare for disappointment because you started a thread about a philosophical position originated by a theist, and currently used by theists 99% of the time to justify theism; so you might be asking a little much to keep them outta the equation. However, I stand by my original point that the first cause argument as written allows for an exception for whatever explanation anyone might have.

 

[PearlSeeker]

In both series, a property goes from one thing to another to the final. In the sun, moon, room system, the causal sequence is (sun)->(moon)->(room) and in the descent sequence it it (Harry)->(Bob)->(John).

Moon reflects light - depends on sun's light. Bob doesn't depend on Harry in the process of begetting.

 

[firedragon]

My response was about "theists" people who believe in God. Do references to theists have a place in the thread? If not you might wanna prepare for disappointment because you started a thread about a philosophical position originated by a theist, and currently used by theists 99% of the time to justify theism; so you might be asking a little much to keep them outta the equation. However, I stand by my original point that the first cause argument as written allows for an exception for whatever explanation anyone might have.

Not at all. This is not an argument to justify theism. It is an argument as I have spoken of in the OP of a "first cause". A first cause does not necessitate theism, and theism is a completely different argument.

The first cause does not need an explanation in this thread, what is needed is the argument for or against the existence of a first cause.

Hope you understand.

 

[Kfox]

Not at all. This is not an argument to justify theism. It is an argument as I have spoken of in the OP of a "first cause". A first cause does not necessitate theism, and theism is a completely different argument.

The first cause does not need an explanation in this thread, what is needed is the argument for or against the existence of a first cause.

Hope you understand.

I was just pointing out how the argument is used. I've heard it used countless times, but I've never heard it used to justify a secular view. Have you?

 

[leroy]

Note that is both are at rest, then each is moving 10 times as fast as the other, but the distances moved are the same.

This is because 10*0=0. The above 'paradox' for infinite time is simply the fact that 10*infinity=infinity.

Why such a 'paradox' implies this cannot happen in reality is yet to be argued.

Cero is not a “thing” nothing time X is = nothing………….I don’t think there are reasons to assume that infinity and cero are analogous.

 

[firedragon]

I was just pointing out how the argument is used. I've heard it used countless times, but I've never heard it used to justify a secular view. Have you?

With all due respect, its a whole different topic.

 

[leroy]

Now, it is true that the density isn't countably additive, but it *is* finitely additive, which is all that is required. And, the density of any single number is precisely zero.

Which is why its impossible to select randomly a square number from an infinite poll of options .

The claim that events with cero probability can happen is not only paradoxical its logically incoherent it´s contradictory

The claims

1 Events “X” has a probability of zero

And

2 Event X wont happen

Are both synonymous.


The probability of selecting a square number randomly is cero, which is why this event cant happen.-