The first cause argument

[PearlSeeker]

In the same way that your illumination is uncaused from outside.

And what did you mean? We produce light (infrared) from within. We do so because we have a temperature above absolute zero.

I thought it was clear that I meant the normal every day use of words "light" and "illumination" - visible light.

 

[ppp]

I thought it was clear that I meant the normal every day use of words "light" and "illumination" - visible light.

Light at a frequency that you cannot see is no different from any other light. Infrared is called infrared because it has a wavelength that is longer than red light. Radio waves are light. So are microwaves, ultraviolet and x-rays. There is no difference between the wavelengths that you can see and the wavelengths you can't. It is just light.

Why would only the light you can see count?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Light at a frequency that you cannot see is no different from any other light. Infrared is called infrared because it has a wavelength that is longer than red light. Radio waves are light. So are microwaves, ultraviolet and x-rays. There is no difference between the wavelengths that you can see and the wavelengths you can't. It is just light.

Why would only the light you can see count?

That is not science. That is psychology and a question of what matters to you or anybody else.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So is the whole point that one sequence involves a self-generated phenomenon that is reflected off of other things and the Johns have new generation at each stage?

But, certainly, there was a first ancestor of those Johns that passed its genetics to the next generation. it was certainly NOT human and was likely to be unicellular, but there was a first one, right? So Both sequences require an uncaused cause for their ability?

Exactly. In this case both chains require first cause but in general first type of chain requires first cause by necessity while the other type of chain could in principle be with or without first cause (endless regression).

That's why...

Aquinas was interested not in a beginning cause but in a sustaining cause, for he believed that the universe could be eternal—although he believed on the basis of revelation that it was not eternal. He constructed his cosmological arguments around the question of what sustains things in the universe in their existence. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. In this case both chains require first cause but in general first type of chain requires first cause by necessity while the other type of chain could in principle be with or without first cause (endless regression).

That's why...

Aquinas was interested not in a beginning cause but in a sustaining cause, for he believed that the universe could be eternal—although he believed on the basis of revelation that it was not eternal. He constructed his cosmological arguments around the question of what sustains things in the universe in their existence. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

The problem is that if you want to do philosophy, rationalism "died" with Descartes.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why would only the light you can see count?

Because the example of causes was about visible illumination of room by light reflected from the moon.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yet the illumination is caused, same as the sun had a cause, same as the solar system had a cause, same as the galaxy had cause, same as etc etc etc had a cause. But at one point we don't know if there was a cause or not.
But if we go by evidence, everything we know had a cause...so

So what difference does that make? I just dont understand your point. Maybe I didnt see your earlier posts.

The example demonstrated causal relations in an "essentially ordered causal series" (also known as "per se" series). Such causal chain necessary requires a primal cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The example demonstrated causal relations in an "essentially ordered causal series" (also known as "per se" series). Such causal chain necessary requires a primal cause.

That is a rule in your brain. You are doing rationalism. It doesn't work other than if you believe in it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is a rule in your brain. You are doing rationalism. It doesn't work other than if you believe in it.

OK. Then 2+2=4 because I believe in it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. Then 2+2=4 because I believe in it.

Well, it is also 2+2=11. But that is all in your mind. You maybe ought to read some more philosophy before you take for granted how it works.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, it is also 2+2=11. But that is all in your mind. You maybe ought to read some more philosophy before you take for granted how it works.

Well, tell this to the accountant that calculates my salary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, tell this to the accountant that calculates my salary.

Well, you do know how 2+2=11 can be true, right?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, you do know how 2+2=11 can be true, right?

Ah, it's in ternary system!

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. In this case both chains require first cause but in general first type of chain requires first cause by necessity while the other type of chain could in principle be with or without first cause (endless regression).

The illumination example could, in principle, be the result of light reflecting forever off of various things, with the last reflection being off of the moon. Or, it could, in principle, be that light has always been moving and only reflected off the moon to illuminate the room. So 'original source' of light would be required.

So either could *in principle* be the result of an infinite regress. And either could *in principle* be the result of a first cause.

That's why...

Aquinas was interested not in a beginning cause but in a sustaining cause, for he believed that the universe could be eternal—although he believed on the basis of revelation that it was not eternal. He constructed his cosmological arguments around the question of what sustains things in the universe in their existence. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

And why would a 'sustaining cause' be required at all? For that matter, why could not physical reality be that sustaining cause?

And, again, given the lack of *necessary* sustaining causes, why would we think any exist at all?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, it is also 2+2=11. But that is all in your mind. You maybe ought to read some more philosophy before you take for granted how it works.

Both are simply the symbolic representation that says that

SS0+SS0=SSSS0

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, it is also 2+2=11. But that is all in your mind. You maybe ought to read some more philosophy before you take for granted how it works.

This short comedy movie came to mind:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both are simply the symbolic representation that says that

SS0+SS0=SSSS0

Yeah, the problem in your system that this on this screen is physical in objective reality yet a mental presentation not a part of objective reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This short comedy movie came to mind:

Well, you still ought to read up upon Descartes and the evil demon as relevant thinking about objective reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..why could not physical reality be that sustaining cause?

What is meant by "physical reality", in that context?
I usually ascribe no intelligence and awareness to physical objects, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not.

It seems to me that the whole notion of "physical reality" is one of a belief that it is only that concept that matters .. and that everything can be determined through our intelligence and there is nothing else to consider.

This philosophy leads to the history of mankind being "one big coincidence".
Some people might believe that, but I can't.

 

[Polymath257]

I thought it was clear that I meant the normal every day use of words "light" and "illumination" - visible light.

Radio is another version of light and illuminates a region, just like visible light does.

For light to be 'visible' simply means that *humans* can see it. But, for example, many birds can see light that we cannot (infrared or ultraviolet).