The first cause argument

[Colt]

I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

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.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

This is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Peace.

God is the one great uncaused Cause. "All other causes are derivatives of this one First Great Source and Center."

 

[firedragon]

Except it isn't a purely philosophical argument because it relies on supposed 'facts' about the world for its premises. You cannot justify them without recourse to the observed universe, which is the domain of science.

If you're saying it's just philosophy I can just deny both premisses as being without philosophical justification and job done, the argument is unsound.

Its like this. If you reject philosophy altogether, its your prerogative. But you cannot reject it, and engage in it.

 

[firedragon]

No, it doesn't.
That in turn, also implies no end.
It still doesn't answer the question why [the universe exists]?
..but that is not the topic.

No Muhammad. He is correct. Anything that has an infinite past does not have a start. His argument is sound.

 

[firedragon]

An infinite past doesn't need a start.

Absolutely. An infinite past doesn't need a start. That is the foundation of this argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

Except it isn't a purely philosophical argument because it relies on supposed 'facts' about the world for its premises. You cannot justify them without recourse to the observed universe, which is the domain of science.

If you're saying it's just philosophy I can just deny both premisses as being without philosophical justification and job done, the argument is unsound.

Its like this. If you reject philosophy altogether, its your prerogative. But you cannot reject it, and engage in it.

How about actually answering the point I made, instead of pretending I said something else entirely?

 

[ratiocinator]

Absolutely. An infinite past doesn't need a start. That is the foundation of this argument.

If an infinite past doesn't need a start, it doesn't need a (first) cause either. Hence (apart from all the other problems with it) the argument fails at P2 if the past is infinite.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it doesn't.

True.

That in turn, also implies no end.

I don't see how that follows.

It still doesn't answer the question why [the universe exists]?
..but that is not the topic.

Yes (to both points).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

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.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

This is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Peace.

Well, it is valid, but it is not sound.
P1 runs into the problem of induction and P2 is unknown and can't be solved with P1 having a problem with induction.

 

[Altfish]

It is absolutely not like the infinite hotel.



This is not an argument for God. Explained already in the OP.

Also, "no true scotsman fallacy".



This is not a science experiment. This is a philosophical argument. And if you read the OP you would realise, said again, this is not argument for God. That is a different argument. Another step. Its irrelevant to this thread. Funny an atheist is obsessed with God. Not internet memes, honest analysis. Try it. Try to address the argument.

Cheers.

So, I have to use totally new reasoning to refute your argument; whereas you have copied ideas used by others.
If someone asks me what is "2+2 equal to" I do not go back to basics to answer the question; I use knowledge previously gained through reading, listening and yes, the internet. It is called research.
I don't think its a no true Scotsman fallacy, either

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But actually, the argument (even if we accepted it fully) doesn't argue for a first cause, just a cause for the universe. There is nothing there that prevents an infinite regress beyond that cause (special pleading aside).


Then what's the justification for either premiss?

Well, it is valid. Don't bother if it is sound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like all the thinking on this thread.

And I have been reading for years on what scientists conclude on the beginning of the Universe.
And what religious dogma says about it.
And yes, taking the "God did it" explanation out of the equation, this is how it is described.

Everything began with a singularity, that due to a very small fluctuation in its existance, resulted into a Big bang.

From a nice summary on Wikipaedia:
Singularity (system theory), in dynamical and social systems, a context in which a small change can cause a large effect
Gravitational singularity, in general relativity, a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill defined
Initial singularity, a hypothesized singularity of infinite density before quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang and subsequent inflation that created the Universe
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, in general relativity theory, theorems about how gravitation produces singularities such as in black holes
...
Anyhow, science is in general terms in agreement that the Universe, planets, stars and everything inbetween is the result of huge ammounts of energy contained in a infinitely small space area, errupted to create the very particles atoms are made off.
This created different metals, after huge stars exploded to produce heavier elements, particles, solarsystems, and eventually life.
...and so on.

Now, we can postulate and debate about how this came about, and learn from Stephen Hawking's Great design" that Gravitational fields created this singularity of ennergy, and a Creator is not needed for Creation.
We can name it, and give it descriptive mumble jumble such as the "First cause" and philosiphy about where this Cause came from, and on what this Cause had an effect on to get the Universe4 going, but we will not be able to get an answer on what the first cause is. Neither will we be able to determine if the first cause working on some singularity that actually consisted of some form of Energy, and how this changed into solid matter.

We know how to change Matter into Energy, but to change Energy into matter is something I assume, to be impossible.
Now lets look at the possible Cause of everything.

If Hawking said it was "Gravitational fields", we can again use our mumbo jumbo "What was the cause of Gravity?
And Hawkin could not explain that.

What scientists are doing to explain away any idea of a Creator, is to ask, "If there are a Creator, what was his first cause".

Therefore, the religious person and the Atheistic person are in a duel fight asking each other..
What caused your first cause.

From my viewpoint, I "believe" in the Creator of the Universe, rather than a "component" of the Universe (gravity).
The reason be that I will rather worship a Creator who described how He made everything, than in say, the Sun, Moon, Stars, any Greek or Egyptian god, for they are all created entities.

I will never give credit for the creation to something such as "Gravity", for such a recognition is blatant Idolatory.

Even when I were still of mind that there are no god, I still did not like to consciensely name a BB, or Gravity the cause of everything.

You don't seem to understand this word: hypothesized.

 

[KWED]

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator,

Define "originator". Unconscious natural processes can be the "cause" of things.

and since the world is originated,

You mean it was formed by gravitational accretion?

it has an originator.

Yes. Gravity and an interstellar cloud.

This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

So you are arguing that stuff usually happens because of other stuff. Yeah, I kinda agree with that in general terms

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.

The "cause" for this universe was the Big Bang.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[KWED]

You have not understood anything in the OP. You are just repeating something that has been repeated on the internet.

Wow! This calls for a double...

 

[KWED]

The argument is about the first cause, if you are talking about "another cause that caused the first cause", that is a collapse of logic. Are you talking about a 0 cause?

First Cause. Cannot logically have another cause. If you read the OP, you will see the infinite regression, which is what you will get into. But still, you cannot use the "first cause" there. First cause by definition is first cause. Not the second cause.

This is why you should not repeat the same thing someone else said on the internet. Analyse it.

It is basic circular logic. Why must there be a "first cause" if it is possible for things to exist without being caused?

 

[RestlessSoul]

But actually, the argument (even if we accepted it fully) doesn't argue for a first cause, just a cause for the universe. There is nothing there that prevents an infinite regress beyond that cause (special pleading aside).


Then what's the justification for either premiss?

If time and space are functions of our universe, existing only as conditions of it's expanding dimensions, it makes no sense to talk about either existing outside the universe. Therefore, infinite regress becomes a concept that makes no sense. Even if the universe had a beginning, there was and is no before. Nor, in the context of finite expanding space, is there a beyond.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

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.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

This is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Peace.

Except we don't truly know whether P2 is correct - as to the universe having a beginning - given that we can't do much else but project anything beyond this (the BB or whatever) or just assume it was the beginning. So more about our lack of knowledge - and hence why we perhaps shouldn't base things on such, but just leave them open. Apart from the fact of a 'being' (with some properties) being the cause rather than anything else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Define "originator". Unconscious natural processes can be the "cause" of things.

You mean it was formed by gravitational accretion?

Yes. Gravity and an interstellar cloud.

So you are arguing that stuff usually happens because of other stuff. Yeah, I kinda agree with that in general terms

The "cause" for this universe was the Big Bang.

Glad we cleared that up.

Please explain more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have not understood anything in the OP. You are just repeating something that has been repeated on the internet.

Ah, irony.

Care to establish that your first premise is true?

Also, what do you mean by "universe"? Would it mean something like "the set of all things"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, irony.

Care to establish that your first premise is true?

Also, what do you mean by "universe"? Would it mean something like "the set of all things"?

Yeah, valid is one thing. Sound is another.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I would like to think that the first cause argument is known practically by everyone in this forum. So its nothing new. This comes with a request so this is honouring that request.

The first cause argument is one of the cosmological arguments. Many have posited various arguments in history and the most prominent argument is of the philosopher Imam Ghazali. One of the significant differences between two of the philosophers in this topic, Avicenna and Ghazali is that Ghazali sticks to one single or fundamental first cause argument which has separated other cosmological arguments from his Kalam argument but Avicenna makes one Kalam argument with the contingency argument as well, and he seems to take a pragmatic school of thought.

Simply put, every originated thing has an originator, and since the world is originated, it has an originator. This would argue that if its "first cause" argument on the table, that goes into validating the first cause, and the God argument is a separate argument from the first cause argument and is not the topic at hand.

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.

Why is this a valid argument that there is a first cause?

Its a logical argument that banks on logical pondering based on exactly what is concisely explained in the argument itself. To elaborate or expand on it, philosophers argue that every being is contingent, which means this being can exist in other ways, contingent upon something else, and that "something else or other being" has a beginning, and if that being is contingent, it would be contingent upon something else. This will go on forever and ends up in an infinite regression. Thus the conclusion is that the universe has a beginning. Now it has to be applied to the argument above.

This is why the first cause argument is a valid argument for a first cause. In its primitive nature this argument is not arguing for a God which carries a lot of baggage and immediately everyone goes into a top down argument. Thus God is a completely separate argument, which is addressed by the Kalam cosmological argument philosophically, it its not the scope of this thread.

Peace.

Why possess in quote unquote?