The first cause argument

[Clara Tea]

So then something about existence has to be eternal to have an infinite past. And that could be a lot of things. God is a filler for that unknown.

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

The website, above is about a new theory by Brazilian physicist, Juliano Silva Neves that the big bang didn't start with a singularity, but, rather, a plasma ball. He pointed out that there is no evidence that the singularity ever existed, but it was assumed because the extreme gravity would have caused it to collapse to a singularity.

I have a problem with a singularity, because the physical laws of the universe break down when there is no space. That is, when the whole universe is zero inches, in all dimensions, velocity is meaningless, and so is acceleration. Mass breaks down to pure energy. I am therefore certain that the universe must have been held apart, against the pull of gravity, by some intense quantum field.

 

[firedragon]

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

The first cause argument still stands. If something existed before the Big Bang or anything for that matter, it would still need an originator. And again a regression, which has to end with a first cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please teach logic in a new thread. It will be an interesting thread in-deed. Thanks in advance.

No, I am not qualified enough. I can do some basics, but my strength is elsewhere. But thanks for asking.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what *are* you referring to?

Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, hold that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

Imagine that you shut your eyes..
What do we experience?
Why is it that sometimes, a minute can seem like 10, and on other occasions an hour seems like only 10 minutes.

Obviously, this sort of time is not a physical concept. It wouldn't exist if we didn't.
Now, you may say that it is not real .. but you would probably say that about God as well

Time is real to the person who experiences it. It doesn't rely on motion or measured time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The first cause argument is simply a logical premise by premise argument.

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.

So can you prove it untrue?

First, I don't need to. I didn't claim that anything was untrue, just unproven and not a shared premise for many.

You, on the other hand, do make that claim. Can you prove it true?

Second, you're not doing your part here. You posted a syllogism. I responded to it specifically, telling you exactly where I disagreed and why. That what dialectic looks like - the cooperative effort to resolve differences in opinion by tow or more people well versed in critical thinking. These people a have a common method of deciding what is true about the world, and can go back to their point of departure and discuss why they took different paths from there. If they share the same ability to interpret evidence with fallacy-free reasoning, they can reach a resolution. One taches, one learns.

That just doesn't happen here, does it? This discussion is already over. It ended when you chose not to tell me whether you liked the rebuttal argument, or if not, exactly what fact or inference you disagreed with and why - as I did. Now you've moved on to another sub-thread where you want me to prove what I didn't claim. What do you imagine is in this for the other person when you do that?

Do contingent beings not have a cause? Please prove it if you dont mind.

I do mind, as I just explained. Please do your part and rebut my rebuttal. It's not all about you and what you want to discuss. If you aren't listening to others, you're preaching, not discussing.

Besides, the arguments against P1 and P2 have been given by multiple other posters here, and you haven't addressed any of them in the sense of acknowledging that read and understood what was written, and if you disagree, where and according to what evidence or argument. People have told you that what applies to objects in the universe doesn't necessarily apply to the universe as a whole? Why don't you feel a responsibility to either say that you agree, or if not, specifically why. We're right where we began in this thread, with you expressing your opinions, failing to rebut others' rebuttals, and repeating yourself that you think you have a good argument there. You don't, and since you don't want to discuss why others think so, the discussion is over.

I just went through this with somebody whose OP was a criticism of evolution. I answered by referring to specific claims in the argument, and telling him why I disagreed. He then mentioned his god (he's Christian), and I told him what I'm telling you here: He made an argument, I rebutted it, and he drifted off with more of his opinions, which were now resembling preaching and nothing to do with evolution, his claims about it, or my rebuttal to his claims. I even pointed out where he had failed to respond to my rebuttal, asked him to do so, and he ignored that as well. Did he even read it? If so, do my questions and comments not matter to him, only his?

So I told him that he wasn't listening, only preaching, that I wasn't interested in discussing his theology with him, that he appeared to be uninterested in discussing what was of interest to me (it was a bait and switch, pretend to care about an imagined crisis in the science only to switch right away to God talk), and that the discussion was over, adios. His reaction was to frame my response as running away. I guess I can't argue with that, although I felt like I was walking.

So, anyway, this is just to let you know that I am always ready to engage in a good faith discussion with you or anybody else, but you need to be paying attention to what you are told and have the respect to address it with a reasoned rebuttal.

Here's what I am saying in graphic form. I don't like this formulation completely, but I won't go into why here, except to say that there is good faith disputation that lives near the top of this triangle, and the bad faith disputation that isn't interested in this in the least, just preaching and often trolling (lowest levels)

I am asking you to be in the upper triangle her, and telling you that for those who can't or won't do so, there is no dialectic, and thus no progress possible. Once I see that, I lose interest in continuing as I have here. Now it's me lecturing, since I don't expect a responsive reply, just more playing in the lowest levels of this hierarchy of debate, which have no value to me. So, let's play by academic standards (dialectic), or not at all:

 

[firedragon]

First, I don't need to. I didn't claim that anything was untrue, just unproven and not a shared premise for many.

So a contingent being is not contingent?

 

[Kooky]

The first cause argument still stands. If something existed before the Big Bang or anything for that matter, it would still need an originator. And again a regression, which has to end with a first cause.

So how do you deal with the paradox that a first cause violates the principle of contingence/causality?

So a contingent being is not contingent?

It can't be, otherwise you wouldn't have a first cause. But if beings don't need to be contingent in principle, then logically, no being needs to be contingent, obviating any need for a first cause.
This is the paradox I've referred to above.

 

[firedragon]

So how do you deal with the paradox that a first cause violates the principle of contingence/causality?

Explain how it violates what your concept is. Maybe you have a point. I dont understand it.

 

[firedragon]

It can't be, otherwise you wouldn't have a first cause. But if beings don't need to be contingent in principle, then logically, no being needs to be contingent, removing a need for a first cause.

Please explain how a being is not contingent.

Can you give an example of a necessary being?

 

[sun rise]

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

In college I took a course on the philosophy of beauty as a break from total science immersion. At the end of the course my conclusion was that philosophers liked certain things, assumed that their liking bore a resemblance to truth and spun out endless learned treatises based on them being right and others being wrong.

 

[Lain]

In college I took a course on the philosophy of beauty as a break from total science immersion. At the end of the course my conclusion was that philosophers liked certain things, assumed that their liking bore a resemblance to truth and spun out endless learned treatises based on them being right and others being wrong.

Does not everyone do this all the time?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In college I took a course on the philosophy of beauty as a break from total science immersion. At the end of the course my conclusion was that philosophers liked certain things, assumed that their liking bore a resemblance to truth and spun out endless learned treatises based on them being right and others being wrong.

Yeah, that is how I make a skeptic. Wrong matters more in the end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does not everyone do this all the time?

Sue a lot of posts is about that and this is one of them.

 

[Link]

In college I took a course on the philosophy of beauty as a break from total science immersion. At the end of the course my conclusion was that philosophers liked certain things, assumed that their liking bore a resemblance to truth and spun out endless learned treatises based on them being right and others being wrong.

Yet to me, truth has clear proofs while falsehood just conjecture. Insights are easy once you get them rolling.

 

[sun rise]

A philosophical argument is not a scientific theory or science. Philosophy does not "Ignore science". Philosophy of science is a whole field, and the scientific method in itself is philosophy, not science. The problem is when someone gets into this topic, someone gets very sensitive and it becomes a tangent, and that becomes a new topic because science is a very sensitive topic for most of the people who will get involved in this thread.

The scientific method is not philosophy. It's the opposite of philosophy because it deals with verifiable facts not the world of ideas. That there is a philosophy of science is irrelevant to the OP you created because you asked us to ignore science in our comments.

But try and understand where science ends. Science does not towards with truths or even facts. It works on natural things. It takes naturalism methodologically. Philosophy does not.

I hope you understand.

I don't understand "science does not towards with truths or even facts" - it's a badly formed sentence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In college I took a course on the philosophy of beauty as a break from total science immersion. At the end of the course my conclusion was that philosophers liked certain things, assumed that their liking bore a resemblance to truth and spun out endless learned treatises based on them being right and others being wrong.

Maybe they were onto something;

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats (who never wasted words)

 

[sun rise]

Does not everyone do this all the time?

Some of us are interested in how the brain processes likes and dislikes. Others with a dash of humility understand that other's viewpoints have validity and even identical validity to their own.

 

[firedragon]

The scientific method is not philosophy. It's the opposite of philosophy because it deals with verifiable facts not the world of ideas. That there is a philosophy of science is irrelevant to the OP you created because you asked us to ignore science in our comments.

Sunrise. The scientific method is philosophy. Science is not. The scientific method is applied in science. I just said there is a philosophy of science to make you understand, not to make it relevant to the OP. In that case, this whole discussion of yours is irrelevant to the OP.

I never said to ignore science. I said that this is not a scientific discussion or argument. I know that a lot of people cant make that distinction.

The scientific method is philosophy. The application is in science. If you cannot make that distinction, then you have not understood science or philosophy.

I don't understand "science does not towards with truths of even facts" - it's a badly formed sentence.

True.

Science does not work towards truths or facts. Science seeks to explain the physical world. Try to understand science. Not to be a scientist, everyone has their field of study and professions. But try to understand science.

Peace.

 

[PureX]

So how do you deal with the paradox that a first cause violates the principle of contingence/causality?


It can't be, otherwise you wouldn't have a first cause. But if beings don't need to be contingent in principle, then logically, no being needs to be contingent, removing a need for a first cause.
This is the paradox I've referred to above.

The possible solution is transcendent contingency: hierarchical causation as opposed to lateral/linear causation. For example, it can be argued that the development of life from inanimate matter was not a lateral/linear cause/effect; but rather a transcendent one. Transcendent in the sense that a whole new realm of existential possibility was achieved by that particular cause/effect development. The same could be argued again regarding the emergence of self/other consciousness within this new existential realm called life, creating yet another new realm of existence: the metaphysical realm. The realm of ideas. In viewing these examples as a transcendent cause/effect, rather than lateral/linear cause/effect, the possibility logically opens up for yet more transcendent realms of existence that we humans are as yet unable to even imagine, let alone perceive or comprehend.

 

[Kooky]

The possible solution is transcendent contingency: hierarchical causation as opposed to lateral/linear causation. For example, it can be argued that the development of life from inanimate matter was not a lateral/linear cause/effect; but rather a transcendent one. Transcendent in the sense that a whole new realm of existential possibility was achieved by that particular cause/effect development. The same could be argued again regarding the emergence of self/other consciousness within this new existential realm called life, creating yet another new realm of existence: the metaphysical realm. The realm of ideas. In viewing these examples as a transcendent cause/effect, rather than lateral/linear cause/effect, the possibility logically opens up for yet more transcendent realms of existence that we humans are as yet unable to even imagine, let alone perceive or comprehend.

The examples you provide all hinge on existing linear-causal relationships, so your proposition doesn't appear to provide the solution you claim it does, and your proposal of a metaphysical realm introduces a whole host of new issues of its own.