The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

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

On the contrary, rationalism began with him.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Nope. It can also be an infinite regress. Your example of illumination could, for example, be the result of an infinite regress of reflection.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, rationalism began with him.

Rationalism - Wikipedia
I will dig deeper if you want to.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Human brains are physical, have intelligence, and are aware.

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.

if you replayed the universe from the Big Bang with a slight adjustment early on, I would not expect humans to arise. In that sense, we are a 'coincidence'.

I'm not sure why your inability to see that we are not predetermined is a problem if the evidence points to that.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

So? It is a statement in a formal system. Nothing else.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Not much difference between the evil demon and living in the matrix or any other version of solipsism.

What is the *definition* of 'objective reality' in terms of 'subjective experience'?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Human brains are physical, have intelligence, and are aware.



if you replayed the universe from the Big Bang with a slight adjustment early on, I would not expect humans to arise. In that sense, we are a 'coincidence'.

I'm not sure why your inability to see that we are not predetermined is a problem if the evidence points to that.

Well, yes, but that requires at least one assumption, which can't be tested. Unless you are in effect God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So? It is a statement in a formal system. Nothing else.

Which has a physical representation otherwise you couldn't communicate it.

 

[Polymath257]

Which has a physical representation otherwise you couldn't communicate it.

Yes. So? A game of chess can have a physical representation as well. There is no significant difference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not much difference between the evil demon and living in the matrix or any other version of solipsism.

What is the *definition* of 'objective reality' in terms of 'subjective experience'?

Stop doing magical thinking. Your subjective definition of a word doesn't make its referent true. If you can show us your definition as part of objective reality and not just being about objective reality in your mind, I will listen to you.
Your definition only exists as the definition in your mind, unless you believe words have magical properties.

Learn that words are 3 things. A meaning, a sign and a referent. They are different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. So? A game of chess can have a physical representation as well. There is no significant difference.

That is your cognition.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Basically you are proposing the first cause argument.

 

[ppp]

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

Your initial premise was that the light from the Sun had no cause from outside. Your example was built upon that premise. Now you are claiming that the light that you can see functions differently than the light you cannot in order to support that example. Since that is untrue, your example is necessarily untrue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your initial premise was that the light from the Sun had no cause from outside. Your example was built upon that premise. Now you are claiming that the light that you can see functions differently than the light you cannot in order to support that example. Since that is untrue, your example is necessarily untrue.

I like when we get to your worldview. Poking holes in other people's understanding is easy. The fun starts if you start doubting your own nature and nurture.

 

[muhammad_isa]

if you replayed the universe from the Big Bang with a slight adjustment early on, I would not expect humans to arise...

Why would you expect humans to arise, full stop?

 

[Polymath257]

Why would you expect humans to arise, full stop?

Exactly. I would not.

To think that the universe was created for us to exist is, to me, the height of hubris.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Your example of illumination could, for example, be the result of an infinite regress of reflection.

Nope. An infinite series of non-luminous bodies cannot be a source of light. There has to be the first cause of the light.

For the point is that as long as the members of such a circular or infinite chain of causes have no independent causal power of their own, there will have to be something outside the series which imparts to them their causal efficacy. (As the Thomist A. D. Sertillanges once put it, a paint brush can’t move itself even if it has a very long handle. And it still couldn’t move itself even if it had an infinitely long handle.) (Edvard Feser)

Edward Feser: Edwards on infinite causal series​

 

[PearlSeeker]

For that matter, why could not physical reality be that sustaining cause?

If we're looking for the first cause of existence it can only be pure actuality (different from physical reality that is a mix of potentiality and actuality).

This explanatory regress cannot possibly terminate in anything other than something which has absolutely independent causal power, which can cause or “actualize” without itself having to be actualized in any way, and only what is purely actual can fit the bill /... /

That is also why, contrary to what Edwards and so many other atheists suppose, it makes no sense to ask why fundamental physical particles or the like might not be the first cause. Particles and other “naturalistic” candidates for the ground floor level of reality are all compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence; accordingly, they are in need of actualization and are therefore necessarily less than the “pure act” or Subsistent Being Itself which alone could, even in principle, be that which causes without in any way being caused (or, as I would prefer to say, which actualizes potency without itself being actualized). (E. Feser)​

 

[PearlSeeker]

Basically you are proposing the first cause argument.

That's right.

 

[ppp]

If we're looking for the first cause of existence it can only be pure actuality (different from physical reality that is a mix of potentiality and actuality)

There cannot logically be a cause of existence. Something that does not exist cannot be the cause of anything. And if your cause already existed, then it could not logically be the cause of existence.