The first cause argument

[ppp]

No it hasn't. Dressing it up in religion and dismissing it as religion does not negate the philosophical proposition, itself, at all.

Yes, it has. The first cause argument is unsound because the first premises is not true. You have no examples of things coming into existence. Therefore anyone arguing that anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is either asserting something for which there is no experience or demonstration; or equivocating two different meanings of begins to exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

OK .. The distances between galaxies are increasing.
We've established that.

Infinity is not a determinable magnitude. It is an unrealisable limit.
We can say that the universe is expanding and approaching the limit. We cannot say that the universe is infinite, without saying precisely what is meant by that.

Do you follow?

 

[firedragon]

The first cause argument is unsound because the first premises is not true. You have no examples of things coming into existence.

So you are an empiricist.

Could you please provide an example of things coming into existence with out a cause. I asked you earlier but you have not provided any. Thanks in advance.

 

[ppp]

So you are an empiricist.

Could you please provide an example of things coming into existence with out a cause. I asked you earlier but you have not provided any. Thanks in advance.

No reason for me to answer you questions until

So you are an empiricist.

Could you please provide an example of things coming into existence with out a cause. I asked you earlier but you have not provided any. Thanks in advance.

Until you stop dodging my questions you aren't worth my while. Good luck to you.

 

[firedragon]

No reason for me to answer you questions until

Until you stop dodging my questions you aren't worth my while. Good luck to you.

I am used to cheap ad hominem from hyper missionary apologists who cannot answer a question, dodge, and call the other person what they should be calling themselves.

But the question remains. I am not an empiricist, but you are. This applying your own standards.

Thus, show an example of something coming into existence with out a cause empirically. Something you have witnessed.

Its just applying your own standards. There is no need to get so angry. Best of luck to you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

The keyword is "inside". Sun produces light independently - uncaused by other cause. It's itself cause of its light.

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.

Yes. The point is that this kind of series must have a first cause.

 

[firedragon]

The keyword is "inside". Sun produces light independently - uncaused by other cause. It's itself cause of its light.

The light emitted by the sun is "uncaused"?

 

[ppp]

The keyword is "inside". Sun produces light independently - uncaused by other cause. It's itself cause of its light.

Wasn't the sun caused by a nebula? Which was in turn caused by an earlier star?

 

[ratiocinator]

No it hasn't.

Of course it has. Both premises are highly questionable.

Every individual phenomena that we observe has a cause.

This has all been covered already, vacuum fluctuations are a counter example as is the decay of a particular radioactive atom at a particular time.

Thus, it is reasonable to presume that everything as a whole phenomenon has a cause.

No, because causation is an aspect of how things behave in space-time, if the universe did have a beginning, then you'd have to assume, without any basis at all, that it could exist without time. There is also the problem that space-time (as understood at the moment) is considered to be a four-dimensional manifold, that, as a whole, is not subject to time (because time is just a direction through it) and so has never started to exist, and will never stop existing. There is also the possibility that the past is infinite.

And no one has ever offered a logical reason why this is not a reasonable presumption.

Already done (many, many times, and by many people).

However, it is only a presumption. It is not a known fact.

If an argument's premises are not true, it is logically unsound.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The light emitted by the sun is "uncaused"?

No. Emitting of light is caused by the sun itself.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Wasn't the sun caused by a nebula? Which was in turn caused by an earlier star?

The property in question is illumination.

 

[PureX]

Of course it has. Both premises are highly questionable.

Questionable but not disproved. And "highly" is your own subjective opinion. But nice try.

This has all been covered already, vacuum fluctuations are a counter example as is the decay of a particular radioactive atom at a particular time.

None of which have proven anything. Just because it has convinced you, who was convinced even before any of this information came to light, does not mean that it means anything in actuality. And the fact that you are working so hard to try and make it so, only serves to discredit your own position.

No, because causation is an aspect of how things behave in space-time, if the universe did have a beginning, then you'd have to assume, without any basis at all, that it could exist without time.

What existed prior to, beyond, or apart from this universe is a COMPLETE MYSTERY to us. We can assume anything we like, even that a bearded God created it, and every presumption we pose is equally likely. The laws that govern this universe only govern this universe. We have no idea where they came from or how or why. None. Zippo. Nada. You can use that complete lack of information to try and dismiss the question of origin, or you can use it to presume God did it. Or to presume anything else you heart desires. In any case, the presumption is pure and complete speculation as we have no possible way of even investigating whatever possibility we pose. What remains, however, is the question. Because everything in this universe is leading us to ask it.

 

[firedragon]

No. Emitting of light is caused by the sun itself.

So what being is uncaused? Please explain. But if I have misunderstood you, I will apologise.

Thanks.

 

[PureX]

Yes, it has. The first cause argument is unsound because the first premises is not true. You have no examples of things coming into existence. Therefore anyone arguing that anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is either asserting something for which there is no experience or demonstration; or equivocating two different meanings of begins to exist.

That's just silly semantics based on poor writing skills, and you know it. (Or you should know it.)

 

[ratiocinator]

Questionable but not disproved.

If the premises of a logical deductive arguments are not actually true (or generally accepted to be true) it is unsound. This deduction proves nothing.

And "highly" is your own subjective opinion. But nice try.

Since the are multiple objections to each premiss, I think 'highly' is perfectly suitable.

Just because it has convinced you, who was convinced even before any of this information came to light, does not mean that it means anything in actuality.

Of course it does. You don't seem to get the burden of proof here - it's with those who make the claim (first cause) to show it is sound. Counterexamples show that it is unsound. Get over it.

And the fact that you are working so hard to try and make it so, only serves to discredit your own position.

I'm not working hard at all.

What existed prior to, beyond, or apart from this universe is a COMPLETE MYSTERY to us. We can assume anything we like, even that a bearded God created it, and every presumption we pose is equally likely. The laws that govern this universe only govern this universe. We have no idea where they came from or how or why. None. Zippo. Nada. You can use that complete lack of information to try and dismiss the question of origin, or you can use it to presume God did it. Or to presume anything else you heart desires. In any case, the presumption is pure and complete speculation as we have no possible way of even investigating whatever possibility we pose. What remains, however, is the question. Because everything in this universe is leading us to ask it.

You've just shown that the first cause argument is indeed unsound, as I claimed and you said wasn't the case. Now there is a mystery of existence itself (why everything exists and is as it is), but postulating a god goes no way towards answering it because we could just ask the same question about any god.

In the end, you either have to say that some things are just brute facts (the existence of the space-time and its contents or something beyond that) or you're faced with an infinite regress of explanation.

 

[ppp]

That's just silly semantics based on poor writing skills, and you know it. (Or you should know it.)

If the best you've got is the semantic equivalent of "nuh uh" there is no point in your replying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it has. The first cause argument is unsound because the first premises is not true. You have no examples of things coming into existence. Therefore anyone arguing that anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is either asserting something for which there is no experience or demonstration; or equivocating two different meanings of begins to exist.

If you want to play metaphysics, ontology and philosophy in general then always consider that there are 3 answers possible. It is known as true. It is known as false. It is unknown.
So do you include the unknown?

 

[ppp]

The property in question is illumination.

Anything warm radiates light. You radiate light.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anything warm radiates light. You radiate light.

Yeah, just as the word "see" only has one definition and exactly the same meaning for all it's usages.

 

[ppp]

If you want to play metaphysics, ontology and philosophy in general then always consider that there are 3 answers possible. It is known as true. It is known as false. It is unknown.
So do you include the unknown?

The unknown about what exactly? You will have to explain the relevance to my post.