The first cause argument

[muhammad_isa]

..An infinite regression is an explanation to a contingent being going back infinitely. Its a logical impossibility. Do you understand brother?

I'm not sure that I do..
Some people would rather accept that the universe is eternal [an infinite past] rather than "something" being responsible for its creation.
Not me, obviously

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See, even if there was something else before the Big Bang, even if someone is desperate to bring the Big Bang into a philosophical argument, that's no problem. Because if there was something before the Big Bang, that so called "Something" is still caused, thus there has to be a first cause that caused it.

Also brother. You have not understood infinite regression. Its evident from what you said above. An infinite regression is an explanation to a contingent being going back infinitely. Its a logical impossibility. Do you understand brother?

You still have to get from valid to sound.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see how that follows.

Well, infinity is infinity, surely?
..or are you quantifying infinity now?

 

[Nimos]

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.

I don't think it is a valid argument, when it comes to the Universe.

We know that the big bang happened, whether it was "caused" to happen is unknown. Also the Universe is not a being, so its not valid in regard to premise 1.

 

[KWED]

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.

Why worship anything?

 

[KWED]

The proposition does not "fall apart" just because we cannot define that first cause. By definition it would have no causation.

Accepting that things can exist without a cause negates the entire argument that everything must have a cause.
I mean "Everything must have a cause apart from things that don't have a cause" is barely even an argument at all.
Hardly rocket science.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Premise 2 is the big problem:

"P2: The universe has a beginning."

Who is so sure about this? Can anyone truly state that they know, for certain, that there was literally NOTHING in existence before the "universe" had its "beginning?" This seems to make absolutely no sense whatsoever itself. You want something that doesn't stand up to logic? It's that. An idea that there was "absolutely nothing" and then the universe began and changed all that. Was there not even "empty space?" Was there not even something to start or spark "the beginning?" If there was anything... ANYTHING AT ALL... then it was part of "the universe" and therefore, something that would certainly qualify as "the universe" was already there.

 

[KWED]

even if someone is desperate to bring the Big Bang into a philosophical argument

It would seem that it is you who is desperate to keep science out of an argument attempting to explain the physical universe. Now, why would you do that, I wonder?

 

[KWED]

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.

"For every philosophy there is an equal and opposite philosophy. And they are both wrong." - Someone or Other

 

[Fool]

This argument falls down when someone asks "Where did the "Thing that caused the first cause" come from?

not really, if you follow the idea that nature recycles, or the idea that the absolute energy cannot be created/destroyed but is simply recycled, reused in some otherness.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Accepting that things can exist without a cause negates the entire argument that everything must have a cause..

Can you give us examples of things that don't have a cause?

 

[KWED]

Can you give us examples of things that don't have a cause?

You misunderstand.
I am not claiming that things can exist without a cause. You are. I am merely pointing out the necessary implication of that claim.

 

[KWED]

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

Good luck with that!

 

[Link]

This is William Craig version of cosmological argument and first cause. It's not the originals. The real type says there is a first cause even if there was an infinite chain, it would need one. The reply to that by Western Academia you applying parts to the whole. My reply to that, it's not, it's by induction. And so first cause is proven whether you posit an infinite chain or not.

 

[Lain]

"For every philosophy there is an equal and opposite philosophy. And they are both wrong." - Someone or Other

The Pyrrhonist arises from his grave achieving his long sought-after ataraxia.

 

[ratiocinator]

The real type says there is a first cause even if there was an infinite chain, it would need one.

Which would be totally nonsensical.

 

[KWED]

I'm not sure that I do..
Some people would rather accept that the universe is eternal [an infinite past] rather than "something" being responsible for its creation.
Not me, obviously

This universe clearly isn't eternal.
However, it is unknown whether the sum of all possible universes is eternal.
As you accept that things can exist without a cause or beginning, then you must also accept the possibility that "all the universes" is eternal.

 

[Link]

Which would be totally nonsensical.

It's non-sensical but true. Infinite chain is a paradox and impossible. That's the point. It both needs a cause by principle of induction and does not need one if infinite, and so reality is it can't exist.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure that I do..
Some people would rather accept that the universe is eternal [an infinite past] rather than "something" being responsible for its creation.
Not me, obviously

Prefer.

I try to think in terms of evidence, not what I prefer to accept.

 

[Link]

This universe clearly isn't eternal.
However, it is unknown whether the sum of all possible universes is eternal.
As you accept that things can exist without a cause or beginning, then you must also accept the possibility that "all the universes" is eternal.

Anything in time cannot be eternal. All parts of all universes are in time. There is no part of any all the universes that is not temporal. It's not miss application of parts to the whole, but sound reasoning by induction, that you see no matter what part of it, it's temporary. The universe can't be eternal but by induction, you know it's temporary.

There always been a time with some state of the universe doesn't make sense, because of induction, it needs a cause that is eternal.