The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

Its like this. If you reject philosophy altogether, its your prerogative. But you cannot reject it, and engage in it.

It isn't a rejection of philosophy. It is asking that a philosophical argument doesn't violate what is known from other sources.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think that a lot of atheists would be surprised to look in a telescope and see a giant eyeball staring back.

Yes, this would likely surprise most atheists. But what does this have to do with anything? And why would this happen? Whose eyeball are we talking about here?

Wasn't it you who was just saying something along the lines of:

the notion is unproven, and has no reason to believe it.

Then you go on to talk about eyeballs in the sky. Interesting.

 

[Polymath257]

Premise 2 is the big problem:

"P2: The universe has a beginning."

Who is so sure about this? Can anyone truly state that they know, for certain, that there was literally NOTHING in existence before the "universe" had its "beginning?" This seems to make absolutely no sense whatsoever itself. You want something that doesn't stand up to logic? It's that. An idea that there was "absolutely nothing" and then the universe began and changed all that. Was there not even "empty space?" Was there not even something to start or spark "the beginning?" If there was anything... ANYTHING AT ALL... then it was part of "the universe" and therefore, something that would certainly qualify as "the universe" was already there.

More to the point, P@ assumes that there is a time prior to when the universe existed (so that the universe could 'begin' to exist). And that is an assumption that is very likely to be false.

It is likely that time and the universe (matter, energy, space) are co-existent. None of them preceded any of the others.

 

[Polymath257]

Please try and find out what a being is in philosophy. They you will understand better.

Please let us in on the secret.

 

[Polymath257]

then the law of conservation is broken if the absolute isn't infinite

Not true. The precise form of any conservation laws is that the total (energy, momentum, etc) at one time is the same as at any other time.

If time itself is finite into the past, there is no violation of the conservation laws.

 

[Altfish]

i didn't use the term god. implying i did is a falsehood.

again the law of conservation is broken; unless the universe is self-perpetuating. now whether there is consciousness involved, that is another aspect of discussion

The correct answer is "I don't know"

 

[Polymath257]

Where's the paradox? Space-time is (as far as current theory tells us) a continuous manifold. Extending it infinitely in any direction (including timelike ones), produces no contradictions.


I suspect you're stuck in a Newtonian idea of time. What 'principle of induction' are you referring to? Induction with regard to physics and science is problematic anyway and seems irrelevant. If you mean in the mathematical sense, then do explain.

This is especially relevant given your signature.

My guess though, is that he is not dealing with mathematical induction, but rather the type of induction typically used in the sciences, where there is an assumption that past regularities continue into the future.

Of course, that principle is not absolute, nor was it used correctly in the argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Conservation of energy depends on the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics. If the laws change, or time itself had a start, it simply wouldn't apply. It's problematic if it applies to the whole universe anyway:-

"The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe." -- Conservation of energy - Relativity.

And, in fact, in a curved spacetime, conservation laws are usually given *locally*. For the law of conservation of energy that is literally no way to even formulate a conservation law in curved spacetime unless that curvature is included.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

P1: Every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning.
P2: The universe has a beginning.
C : Thus its "possesses" a cause for its beginning.

Others have already pointed out the fallacies here. You assume things not known to be true. Both P1 and P2 are unshared premises, which is why your argument is called valid, but not sound.

How about changing it to a conditional syllogism? Now, soundness doesn't enter in, just validity:

P1: If every being that has a beginning has a cause for its beginning,
P2: And the universe is a being and has a beginning,
C : Then the universe has a cause for its beginning.

I don't see how that can be wrong.

You said "An infinite past wouldn't have a start.". Thats the foundation of the argument.

That's just a definition. To say that something has always existed is to say that one can go back in time without limit, which is what infinite means: unlimited.

An infinite regress will never get started in the first place. The thing will never happen.

I'm assuming by this that you mean that we can't have something that exists now and has always existed, since it would never reach this moment with an infinite number of moments to traverse to get here to now. If not, please disregard the following:

Here's the problem as I see it. The universe is here. It either has always existed, or was caused by something else such as a deity or a multiverse. That prior cause has likewise always existed, or was caused by something else. In the end, because there is something rather than nothing, it seems to me we are forced to conclude that something exists - maybe this universe, maybe something else - that has either existed infinitely into the past, or came into being uncaused. Both of those are objectionable to many people. Each considered separately seems impossible - how could anything pass through an infinite number of moments to get to this one? And how can something just bootstrap itself into existence from nothing to exist uncaused?

I think that we're either forced to accept that one of these two - something has an infinite past or came into existence uncaused (I can't think of a third choice) must be the case, or else that our reasoning breaks down here, which also seems counterintuitive.

My point is that it is an incomplete analysis to pick one of these, call it impossible because it is extremely counterintuitive, and think that rules that possibility out, or the alternative in. If it leaves only one alternative that is equally counterintuitive, this must be addressed at the same time as I have done here. Yes, it seems that nothing that exists now can have always existed, but I think you either have to agree that has, or that something came into existence uncaused and is the source of all existence, or that this seemingly valid argument is not that, because there is either a third overlooked possibility, which also seems impossible, or that reason doesn't apply here. I don't like any of those choices, but I think you can see the fallacy in pointing to just one and saying, "Impossible."

What do you think?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do you determine that, when we only have one Universe and no clue how it happened?

We do have a clue..
..but I think you reject it.

Personally, I reject that the universe came from no-where.
It would be like a movie without a projector.

 

[Polymath257]

It's still in time (universe) and temporal.

Actually, it is the other way around: time is *in the universe*.

If all parts of temporary, and it won't come to be, unless something brings it to be, then it would never come to existence. This is obvious for a finite chain, but for infinite chain, you just inductively reason through it, they are all saying they won't come to be unless something else preceding me says come to be, and this will go on forever, with no start.

Yes, there is no start to the sequence: it is always going.

So they are all temporary yet infinite would mean part of it is eternal and always been there, but this is not true.

The sequence of events is always there. No single event need be.

So you prove two ways by induction and by contradiction, that it needs a cause outside itself.

No contradiction found.

 

[KWED]

However, there exists something called "philosophical time" whose definition is not defined in physical terms.

Oh, those pesky philosophers. What will they come up with next!

 

[Link]

The sequence of events is always there.

This is asserting the conclusion and not dealing with the argument. If you cut the universe in whatever sections you can always see all of it is temporal. You assume well maybe some of event was going at some time in the past, and so keep going, and going, but you will never get to a sequence events that was always there, no matter what part of you cut. I'm saying by induction, you can conclude, it's temporal all of it, and so by contradiction, prove it doesn't keep going back but stops.

This proves calling universal possibility eternal comes down to sophistry and is impossible since none of it is always there, it does follow all of it was not always there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We do have a clue..
..but I think you reject it.

Personally, I reject that the universe came from no-where.
It would be like a movie without a projector.

And I don't know one way or another.
But I doubt that the universe obeys you, based on what you think,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, those pesky philosophers. What will they come up with next!

A new version of science. Karl Popper did good, but maybe another philosopher can do better.

 

[Polymath257]

This is asserting the conclusion and not dealing with the argument. If you cut the universe in whatever sections you can always see all of it is temporal.

What do you mean by 'cut the universe'? Do you mean a time-slice? Or a spatial slice?

You assume well maybe some of event was going at some time in the past, and so keep going, and going, but you will never get to a sequence events that was always there, no matter what part of you cut.

Why not? You make a claim, but don't justify it.

I'm saying by induction, you can conclude, it's temporal all of it, and so by contradiction, prove it doesn't keep going back but stops.

Sorry, induction would show that if there is always a cause, then there is an infinite sequence of causes. There is no contradiction to that statement.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can logically prove it is incorrect if you like. I would actually like to hear it out.

How long can you wait?

 

[KWED]

Also if a whole thing is made of water, it's not fallacy of composition to say it's water.

That's not what the composition fallacy is. It is to assume that because parts of a thing are x, then the whole is x.

 

[Link]

Also there is proper application of parts to the whole and improper. I would say to say the whole universe is an effect is a proper application whether the chain is infinite or not, you can see all of it effects which makes it an effect. Effect needs a cause. And so universe needs a cause.

 

[KWED]

We getting to sophistry here.

The definition of the cosmological argument.