The first cause argument

[firedragon]

I have read it. And am very familiar with the Kalam, of which this is a variation.

What have you seen begin to exist? I would wager nothing, but I could be wrong. Tell me.

Err. You missed the first premise completely. Its not about being familiar with the Kalam. If you read the OP, it is not only about the Kalam.

Anyway, you have to further read that simple first premise. And please again I ask you to explain why its not true.

 

[ppp]

Err. You missed the first premise completely. Its not about being familiar with the Kalam. If you read the OP, it is not only about the Kalam.

Anyway, you have to further read that simple first premise. And please again I ask you to explain why its not true.

Because you have not demonstrated it to be true. It is, at this point merely an unsupported assertion.

 

[ppp]

Err. You missed the first premise completely. Its not about being familiar with the Kalam. If you read the OP, it is not only about the Kalam.

Anyway, you have to further read that simple first premise. And please again I ask you to explain why its not true.

BTW, I get that it feels intuitively true, but intuition is not enough for a premise of a logical argument.

Here is a hint. In order to make it a supported claim, we would have to have demonstrable experience with things coming into existence. I would argue that we do not.

 

[firedragon]

BTW, I get that it feels intuitively true, but intuition is not enough for a premise of a logical argument.

Here is a hint. In order to make it a supported claim, we would have to have demonstrable experience with things coming into existence. I would argue that we do not.

Of course we do. My child came into existence, and the parents were the cause. Demonstrable experience using your own words.

Anyway, that's not how reason is installed.

 

[ppp]

Of course we do. My child came into existence, and the parents were the cause. Demonstrable experience using your own words.

Is that the same type of coming into existence that you mean for the universe? Have the matter/energy and field and forces that comprise this universe always existed?

Anyway, that's not how reason is installed.

Installed? Is that the word you meant? I don't understand your meaning.

 

[firedragon]

Is that the same type of coming into existence that you mean for the universe? Have the matter/energy and field and forces that comprise this universe always existed?

You mean to say that the universe has existed forever? Is that your point? And are you positing scientific evidence for that?

Installed? Is that the word you meant? I don't understand your meaning.

You can use another word if you like. This is reasoning. A philosophical argument. It is not a scientific argument.

 

[ppp]

You mean to say that the universe has existed forever? Is that your point? And are you positing scientific evidence for that?

No. I am not saying that. I asked you two questions because, rather than assuming your position and misrepresenting you, I wanted to know your answer. Do you mind answering them?

 

[firedragon]

No. I am not saying that. I asked you two questions because, rather than assuming your position and misrepresenting you, I wanted to know your answer. Do you mind answering them?

See Policy, when anything begins to exist, it has a beginning. Thats bottomline. And in order to have a beginning, something has to cause that beginning. Dont you think?

Or do you believe things can come into existence without a cause?

 

[firedragon]

@Policy Yet. I like your line of argumentation. Maybe you can teach me a thing or two. Please go ahead.

 

[ppp]

See Policy, when anything begins to exist, it has a beginning. Thats bottomline. And in order to have a beginning, something has to cause that beginning. Dont you think?

Or do you believe things can come into existence without a cause?

That is not an answer to either question I posed. Below are the context and the questions. I am not going to drag answers out of you. But I don't see much value in trying to converse with someone who won't be straightforward with me. It's up to you.

Of course we do. My child came into existence, and the parents were the cause. Demonstrable experience using your own words.

Is that the same type of coming into existence that you mean for the universe?
Have the matter/energy and field and forces that comprise this universe always existed?

 

[firedragon]

That is not an answer to either question I posed.

Maybe not. That was a question.

Below are the context and the questions. I am not going to drag answers out of you. But I don't see much value in trying to converse with someone who won't be straightforward with me. It's up to you.

I am used to engaging with people in this forum Policy and ad hominem like this is pretty common.

Is that the same type of coming into existence that you mean for the universe?
Have the matter/energy and field and forces that comprise this universe always existed?

Why do you ask that question about matter and energy etc? Aren't they all part of this universe? If the universe came into existence at some point, all of these would have come into existence with the universe. That is why the word universe is used.

Nevertheless, the universe is the second proposition. We are still at the first proposition.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Do you believe that anything that begins to exist comes into existence without a cause? Why do you believe that? As you asked, using your same type of empiricism, can you demonstrate it? Have you ever observed something coming into existence without a cause? This is asked using your own foundation. Your own epistemology.

 

[PureX]

Interesting ... that ultimately, both science and logic come up short. Neither of them can resolve the first cause existential dilemma.

 

[ratiocinator]

Interesting ... that ultimately, both science and logic come up short. Neither of them can resolve the first cause existential dilemma.

The first cause argument is trivially unsound - as has already been shown multiple times in this thread - not to mention that it's not really an argument for a god anyway. There are many logical and scientific alternatives. As for the "existential dilemma" (by which I assume you mean the ultimate reason why stuff exists and is as it is), a god really doesn't help at all because we could still as the same question about any proposed god (or gods). So religion doesn't help either.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not saying that.

Good.

That is a clear case of an absolute infinite length. It cannot be increased.

Three comments:

1. It is NOT the 'absolute infinity' that Cantor was talking about. In fact, the size of the line is very small in the hierarchy that Cantor discovered.

2. It most certainly *can* be increased: simply think of the line as being inside of a plane. The plane is undeniably larger than the line, right?

3. More relevant to 'expansion', imagine two of those lines, parallel to each other. Label the points on the upper line with numbers (a number line as in elementary school). Also label the lower line with numbers, but have the numbers placed twice as far apart as they are in the upper line.

Now imagine the upper line expanding to become the lower line in such a way that the numbers are aligned. If you want, think of arrows from the number on the upper line to the same number on the lower line.

The distances between all of the points increased by a factor of 2. So the upper line can expand to give the lower line. Yes, even though both are infinite in length.

Every *finite* piece of the upper line has its length double in the lower line.

Again, I have no issue with that. It cannot be increased.

See above.

Yes .. we do have evidence that the universe is expanding.
It is just that I find that it is not coherent to have an expanding volume that is infinite. It is a contradiction.

To suggest that the distance between galaxies are moving away from each other, and the volume correspondingly increases contradicts the notion of the behaviour of a non-finite quantity.

That is, "as an infinite space grows, it remains infinite" is a paradoxical concept. Something that cannot be increased, cannot grow.

See above.

Now, your suggestion that it is only the distance between galaxies that is increasing, and the volume of space is constant is in question. It is understood that it is the metric of spacetime itself that increases.

The metric is the mathematical description of the distances. When you say that the metric increases, that is the same as saying the distances increase, which is the same as saying things are expanding.

 

[KWED]

You mean to say that the universe has existed forever? Is that your point? And are you positing scientific evidence for that?

lol! That was your point. You claimed that a baby "comes into existence" in the way a universe does.
All the component elements of a baby already existed in some form. Therefore the same for the universe (by your flawed argument).

Still struggling with this stuff then?

 

[PureX]

The first cause argument is trivially unsound - as has already been shown multiple times in this thread

No it hasn't. Dressing it up in religion and dismissing it as religion does not negate the philosophical proposition, itself, at all. And neither does any other argument ever posed against it. Every individual phenomena that we observe has a cause. Thus, it is reasonable to presume that everything as a whole phenomenon has a cause. And no one has ever offered a logical reason why this is not a reasonable presumption.

However, it is only a presumption. It is not a known fact. Observations about the limits of time and cognitive causation may call the presumption into question, but they by no means or measure negate it. So you can huff and puff til the cows come home but this particular house remains standing. And all the king's logic and all the king's science cannot make it fall.

Sorry.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The 'efficacy' of the moon in the previous is only in its ability to reflect light. That ability does not depend on the existence of the sun. It *does* depend on the existence of light. And, if light is available from some other source, it will also be reflected.

In the case of the John's, John transfers DNA to the egg from which John II is developed. That DNA then multiplies and is transferred to the egg from which John III is developed. Unless that DNA is transferred, John II and John III don't even come into existence.

Again, I fail to see a meaningful difference: which one requires an uncaused cause? Which one does not?

The sun has it's own light to shine (uncaused cause). Moon has its capacity to reflect light but in order to shine it depends on light (from a source).

In the case of Johns each member of the series has it's own capacity to beget. Once there is John II he can beget John III independently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

3. More relevant to 'expansion', imagine two of those lines, parallel to each other. Label the points on the upper line with numbers (a number line as in elementary school). Also label the lower line with numbers, but have the numbers placed twice as far apart as they are in the upper line.

Now imagine the upper line expanding to become the lower line in such a way that the numbers are aligned. If you want, think of arrows from the number on the upper line to the same number on the lower line.

***MOD EDIT***
You are merely exploiting the properties of infinity to prove what you want to prove.
..just as in infinity = infinity + 1

***MOD EDIT***You simply can't have a line that is of infinite length and expand its length.
***MOD EDIT***

Every *finite* piece of the upper line has its length double in the lower line.

As I say above, you are just exploiting the properties of infinity, by suggesting that infinity can apparently be of any magnitude.
It can't.

The metric is the mathematical description of the distances. When you say that the metric increases, that is the same as saying the distances increase, which is the same as saying things are expanding.

Yes, the distances increase, as does the volume of space.
Anybody can see that.

Unless of course, you suggest that "space" is of infinite size, and the heavenly bodies only take up a finite portion of it .. which is relatively nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

The sun has it's own light to shine (uncaused cause).

But my point is that it is NOT uncaused: it is caused by the nuclear reactions inside of it, which are in turn caused by the temperature and pressure, etc.

Moon has its capacity to reflect light but in order to shine it depends on light (from a source).

The moon does NOT SHINE: it only reflects. The light is what illuminates.

In the case of Johns each member of the series has it's own capacity to beget. Once there is John II he can beget John III independently.

And the moon can reflect any light that falls upon it. That is its property. The sun provides light, but it is not the only possible source of light.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Every *finite* piece of the upper line has its length double in the lower line.

you are just exploiting the properties of infinity, by suggesting that infinity can apparently be of any magnitude.
It can't.

Oh dear .. the concept of infinity is very confusing for me.
I shall have to "recalculate".

In fact, I can see now that while infinity can not be "of any magnitude", it can't be of any particular magnitude either.