The first cause argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The premises on the KCA are not mere assertions , but rather they are supported by arguments If you want to remain agnostic you are expected deal and refute these arguments Those article provides 3 arguments for premise 1 and 4 arguments for premise 2, if you want to remain agnostic have to refute these arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

I rebutted Craig the last time you posted this. I sent him an email, but haven't heard back from him yet.

The concept of simultaneous cause and effect is at least logically coherent , why can't the cause and the effect happen at the same moment without time between them ?

No, not coherent. Which one is the cause? What does it mean to be a cause?

Can you quote any source that describes causation (cause and effect) as 2 events that are necessarily separated by time?

Yes. And so could you using Google: "It is a fundamental that simultaneous cause and effect is impossible. The relative nature of simultaneity conflicts with the fundamental requirement that effect cannot precede cause."

 

[rational experiences]

Men. Just humans want.

You want by egotism in a social status to apply measures.

So you do.

Yet what exists is not your measure.

Pretty basic reason why men argued against egotists.

A man says a hole is emptied of its pre owned form. Space means empty.

You ask how do you know.

He says space is empty. I caused earth to empty. I made sin. Sink holes.

Sin using my measure K my human used symbol constant.

Knowing consuming meant why space was empty.

So I changed it to symbol C.

Value C he said my life 100 years
Value C Christ heavens supported by immaculate.

Reasons said any hot alight gas was cooled.

So I said immaculate supported my life.

But alight sacrificed gas spirits also supported my life. Balances.

A teaching.

Any human who isn't mentally deficient knows gases burn in a voiding heavens vacuum.

We don't live in a burning gas constant.

So a measure the light constant was named a measure only.

Humans know. No human living all humans die. Then no measure exists

If we all died in the same reacted moment then in that moment our egotist brother would quote I was wrong.

He won't quote it anywhere else as in life only he is right.

So if you say space the body is a thin plane only it is empty.

I said I must O use maths to measure. Why I used 0 zero. Lots of them..... constantly yet 0 it's only one zero only.

A plane.

As I wanted to infer a measure.

I know it's just a plane as the gas heavens does not fill it in to be physical mass.

I teach.

I say imagine each solid releases its solid ....space would just about be filled in.

Why I taught once no space existed.

 

[night912]

I didn't say I can make no sense of it.
I just said that it is hidden from us.

So you're saying that you can make sense of the hidden reality that you have no access, meaning that you cannot know of its existence, yet you know that that hidden reality is hidden.

Why didn't you say that earlier, it all makes sense now.

There is not much point in rushing to understand something in its entirety.
If we do that, we are likely to become mentally unbalanced.
Success doesn't lie there. It lies in accepting our limitations.

So basically you're implying that you're mentally unbalanced since you rushed to the conclusion that you know the entirety of the existence of a hidden reality.

 

[firedragon]

If that is what you accept, then you must also accept an infinite universe. An infinite amount of "beginnings" must also be acceptable.

That is a logical impossibility. Its a square triangle.

 

[rational experiences]

So you're saying that you can make sense of the hidden reality that you have no access, meaning that you cannot know of its existence, yet you know that that hidden reality is hidden.

Why didn't you say that earlier, it all makes sense now.




So basically you're implying that you're mentally unbalanced since you rushed to the conclusion that you know the entirety of the existence of a hidden reality.

What is hidden?

O God hides behind the source. A planet.

So he says I want what is hidden.

He knows stone rock is not radiating.

He says where he began converting owned radiating space.

Pretty basic radiating space owns the energy reaction I want continued.

Okay scientists.

Then he sings a song....we didn't start the fire it was always burning since the world was turning.

He wants a heated reaction. Applies it. O earth God he says.

Lets put God into the place earth I took dusts minus one into. Reactive change.

So God starts irradiating.

Not out of it's rock. Not out of its dusts already radiating. Out of the space he said began and ends as a hole.

Inventive theorising.

If I theory a Hole. I get a hole.

Equals answer. Sin hole.

No I don't want equals ....want says I want infinite which was the biggest space hole. Lots of space zeros counting 0000000000000000000000000 I wanted a hole.

Holes in space he said owned a measure.

Is infinite a reaction began ended?

Yes says theist.

Big bang then consuming then a big hole.

Not his measured hole.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So basically you're implying that you're mentally unbalanced since you rushed to the conclusion that you know the entirety of the existence of a hidden reality.

Talk sense. I don't claim to know everything about G-d.
Why should I want to know everything about G-d?
Do I want to challenge His authority? No.
It is hidden from me for a reason.

I will die when the time comes. We need patience. We need sincerity.
We can take life seriously .. or not. It's up to us.

 

[night912]

That is a logical impossibility. Its a square triangle.

Tell that to the one who believes that we are the ones who determines time in a particular frame of reference.

 

[night912]

Talk sense. I don't claim to know everything about G-d.

Are you capable of defending your argument without dodging other people's objections and/or using a strawman?

You claim to know that god exist and is hiding even though you have no way of accessing him in any way.

Why should I want to know everything about G-d?

Why ask me those questions, you're the who believes that god exist, not me.

Do I want to challenge His authority? No.
It is hidden from me for a reason.

What authority? You claimed that his authority is hidden.

 

[firedragon]

Tell that to the one who believes that we are the ones who determines time in a particular frame of reference.

See, I say what I have to say to the person making a proposition. Hope you understand. But if there was some other context to your post of an infinite loop of beginnings and you dont really make that proposition, then that's a whole other thing.

Cheers.

 

[night912]

See, I say what I have to say to the person making a proposition. Hope you understand. But if there was some other context to your post of an infinite loop of beginnings and you dont really make that proposition, then that's a whole other thing.

Cheers.

Since I did not make that proposition, it's a whole other thing then.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What authority? You claimed that his authority is hidden.

His authority is not hidden.
I see that we all have to die.
I see that there are natural laws.

A person who challenges his authority would be like a person who spends millions of dollars on keeping their deceased physical body in a freezer, hoping to come back to life one day.

 

[firedragon]

Since I did not make that proposition, it's a whole other thing then.

Okay.

 

[rational experiences]

Men. Authority.

You argue over who represents it.

You don't say it's God.

Reasoning. You say if I know God I will get God then convert God into your want. Today it is electricity.

So you say I claim by my consciousness hid energy is everything. God. Electricity he says is hidden within mass. As earth science began with earth.

How come everything is different?

You want everything just to be one.

Yes he says number one the first. Beginning.

And claims sanity.

Your brother said there is no discussing any status talk with you as you are the authority.

So he tried to state gods words on a shut bible said it all.

Just a bunch of egotists who don't want anything else to even exist. Only one source one being no variations.

Possessed by being a scientist was his brothers just a human conclusion.

 

[firedragon]

I rebutted Craig the last time you posted this. I sent him an email, but haven't heard back from him yet.

If you find some time and its okay with you, please be kind enough to share this rebuttal here to read. When you have time.

Thanks you very much.

 

[rational experiences]

A possessed mind brain.

A humans head on top of a humans body.

Human theists.

Who said I returned as a son of a man back from the dead returned.

∆ my time machine thesis.

Which was actually picture depicted. The stories of life on earths destroyers.

Men with animal heads instead of human heads.

Looking back.

Men said looking back at any living creature by his mind head. Man's.

Everything he never was.

Father told me. One man his father a non theist owned the only real first man consciousness. Was innocent meek loving consciousness.

So was a baby man the same self until he irradiated caused heavens fall out attack of life body mind.

By claiming status by thought only after father's life body had in fact died. Only man's first conscious identity. He was a baby man living his own mind memory and his own life body. Fake beliefs.

By conditions to string theory before of a humans first status.

Animals are instant life biology living with us at the same time.

Light atmosphere water oxygenated

Is not looking back in time. It is comparing living biology. By choice.

Looking back in time self thinker was father a human man who was deceased.

Consciously man came from a little body sperm.

Possessed by theorising falsely as a man. Said I am man's son of a human purpose who came back from the dead. My father a far more spiritual innocent intelligent aware self.

Just human.

All in his head. He was a baby man son born by human sex.

How he came about falsifying life's status on earth.

∆ pyramid had once destroyed all life by time shifting it as minus mass earth God O by sun.

Mi nus sun.

Actually.

Why archaeology found instant snap frozen machine parts human artefacts in earths fusion.

The story how a human theist manipulated information is a true human story.

About his status first human. A man. Not a father spiritually. A baby man son. The theist egotist scientists self.

Looking back falsifying correct human status.

First in science by human theist is planet earth his machine beginning theories. By manipulation of mass.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The concept of simultaneous cause and effect is atleas logically coherent , why can't the cause and the effect happen at the same moment without time between them

No, not coherent. Which one is the cause? What does it mean to be a cause?

It's about dependence (not simultaneusness).

To correctly understand the first/primary/ultimate cause argument it is first necessary to differentiate between per accidens and per se causal series. Most attacks/defences are lacking this understanding.

See for example:

Aquinas and Per Se Causal Reasoning - Chronicles of Strength

Indeed, while a per se causal series may be often arranged hierarchically and involve cause-effect relations which are simultaneous (though not necessarily instantaneous) that is NOT what defines a per se causal series. Again, what defines a per se causal series is when the causal property in question is not possessed inherently by subsequent members of the series. When (x) must borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). THAT is what makes a causal series per se, regardless of if organized hierarchically, linearly, etc. This we must always keep in mind. (Pat Flynn)​

 

[Ponder This]

But yes, the point of the axiom is that there is a set of natural numbers as opposed to a proper class thereof.

The set introduced in the Axiom of Infinity is not necessarily the Natural numbers nor is it necessarily an isomorphism of the Natural numbers. It is insufficent for that purpose. In order to define a morphism to the Natural numbers, you have to define the Natural numbers (or something that you would consider to be isomorphic to the Natural numbers that you then call the "natural numbers"). Otherwise, it is an morphism to... ??? In this case, the Natural numbers requires an initial element (conveniently that would be the empty set) and a successor function x U {x}. Now you can try to define your morphism.... maybe. I leave that to you to work out.

They move to make space for other guests.

Yes, and when you trace that chain of causality you arrive at the first mover (you).

Why? The guests are moved to make room for other guests.

"The guest are moved" by you.

In the same way, an infinite regress can be continually added onto with new causal relations.

If you have an infinite regress of explanation, then you haven't actually explained why any of the guests move.

It is important to be very careful with language. 'Having a beginning' in the sense that there is no time previous is one thing. 'Coming into existence' implies a time before a process that ends with the existence. 'Beginning to exist' is rather ambiguous about implications of previous times.
The point is that causality requires time. If there is no *time* when the universe does not exist, there can be no causality of its existence.

Language can be tricky. I'll leave you to consider the implications of your language carefully. This notion of binding causality to time and binding time to the universe is predominant in physical science as opposed to purely metaphysical considerations.

Sorry, but I've no idea what you're trying to say, then. The space-time manifold (assuming that is ultimately the correct way to look at it) may be finite in one direction (the past). I simply do not see how you can look at the whole manifold and sensibly say that it had a beginning. It looks like you just haven't understood the analogy. A 2-dimensional surface, like that of a sphere, is a type of manifold, 4-dimensional space-time is also a manifold, which includes time itself as a coordinate. The whole thing is timeless, so it makes no sense to say it began to exist.

If there were no "beginning" to the Earth (when considered as a static 3-dimensional object), you would be unable to define a 2-dimensional manifold describing its surface. You would say, "There is no surface."

What case? The point is that we simply don't know what happened as we extrapolate further back because we run out of tested scientific theories that would be applicable, so we can't assume that time is finite in the past. It might be, but it might not be as well, we just don't know.

You're trying to use speculative models to oust main theory. If you don't understand the objection, I don't think I can make it any more clear. Sorry.

It's not me who is trying to prove anything. The argument in the OP is in the form of a deduction, which can only be sound if the premises are true. If we don't know they are true, and indeed have good reason to think otherwise, then the deduction has failed and we cannot rely on the conclusion.

Your argument is invalid.
Given:
1. if p, then q
2. ~p
_________________
It does not follow that:
3. ~q
Moreover, if you are trying to say something substantial about the truth of the premises, then don't claim you aren't. And if you aren't, then don't claim you have!

Taking a set of unknowns, then making highly questionable assumptions about the answers to arrive at a conclusion that you want, isn't all that convincing.

Putting aside your... characterization of the OP. Arguments need not be "convincing" in order to be valid or sound. You are under no compulsion to believe or disbelieve the truth of the premises, the validity of the argument, or the soundness of the conclusion.

______________________________________

I don't think the question of whether or not the universe has a beginning (from a philosophical point of view) was answered.
I also don't think people are going to agree about it. They will believe what they want to believe.

 

[lukethethird]

The first cause argument
Now ye did it.
Wasn't me,
It was The Almighty

 

[Polymath257]

The set introduced in the Axiom of Infinity is not necessarily the Natural numbers nor is it necessarily an isomorphism of the Natural numbers.

The Axiom of Infinity says that there is an inductive set (one that contains the empty set and is closed under the successor operation). The set of Natural Numbers is then *defined* to be the smallest inductive set (or, alternatively, the intersection of all inductive sets).

From just the Axioms of Pairing and of Union, it is possible to define what it means to be a natural number (a non-limit ordinal that contains no limit ordinal) and thereby to talk about the *class* of natural numbers. The import of the Axiom of Infinity is that this class is actually a set and not a proper class.

It is insufficent for that purpose. In order to define a morphism to the Natural numbers, you have to define the Natural numbers (or something that you would consider to be isomorphic to the Natural numbers that you then call the "natural numbers"). Otherwise, it is an morphism to... ??? In this case, the Natural numbers requires an initial element (conveniently that would be the empty set) and a successor function x U {x}. Now you can try to define your morphism.... maybe. I leave that to you to work out.

Once again, it is perfectly possible to talk about the collection of natural numbers as a *class* prior to the Axiom of Infinity. Also, the morphisms are also perfectly possible to discuss and formulate without it. ALL that the AI does is say that there is a *set* rather than a proper class of natural numbers.

Yes, and when you trace that chain of causality you arrive at the first mover (you).

Not necessarily. For example, suppose a new guest arrives every day. They are told (by the current manager) to go to the first room, and change to the next higher room every night. The managers change every 1000 days and are told about the instructions for new guests.

This has been going on literally forever. So there are infinitely many guests (one for each room), each was told what to do by the manager at the time they arrived. But each guest and each manager is given instructions.

The chain of causality for each guest goes back to a manager, and then back through infinity many managers.

"The guest are moved" by you.

Not in the new scenario. They are directed to move each later night by one manager, but no single manager told all the guests how to move.

If you have an infinite regress of explanation, then you haven't actually explained why any of the guests move.

They have literally always been moving. No further explanation is required.

Language can be tricky. I'll leave you to consider the implications of your language carefully. This notion of binding causality to time and binding time to the universe is predominant in physical science as opposed to purely metaphysical considerations.

Indeed, language can be tricky, especially in these matters. There are hidden assumptions about time in much of our language that may not be appropriate.

Can you give a single 'metaphysical cause' that is not a physical cause?

If there were no "beginning" to the Earth (when considered as a static 3-dimensional object), you would be unable to define a 2-dimensional manifold describing its surface. You would say, "There is no surface."

So you don't understand the analogy.

o use speculative models to oust main theory. If you don't understand the objection, I don't think I can make it any more clear. Sorry.

Speculative models with a LOT of observational support.

Your argument is invalid.
Given:
1. if p, then q
2. ~p
_________________
It does not follow that:
3. ~q
Moreover, if you are trying to say something substantial about the truth of the premises, then don't claim you aren't. And if you aren't, then don't claim you have!

That is NOT my argument. My argument is
1. If p, then q
2. We don't know whether p is true or not.
BUT
the claim is made (in the OP) that we can conclude q.

My claim is that this argument is unsound because we don't know whether p is true or not. If it is NOT true, the the conclusion of q is invalid.

Putting aside your... characterization of the OP. Arguments need not be "convincing" in order to be valid or sound. You are under no compulsion to believe or disbelieve the truth of the premises, the validity of the argument, or the soundness of the conclusion.

The soundness of the argument requires that the assumptions be true. if they are not known to be true, the argument is unsound.

I don't think the question of whether or not the universe has a beginning (from a philosophical point of view) was answered.
I also don't think people are going to agree about it. They will believe what they want to believe.

Good! that is precisely my point! The conclusion that the universe has a beginning cannot be established by philosophy alone. In the same way, whether there is a 'first cause' cannot be determined by philosophy alone.

 

[Polymath257]

It's about dependence (not simultaneusness).

To correctly understand the first/primary/ultimate cause argument it is first necessary to differentiate between per accidens and per se causal series. Most attacks/defences are lacking this understanding.

See for example:

Aquinas and Per Se Causal Reasoning - Chronicles of Strength

Indeed, while a per se causal series may be often arranged hierarchically and involve cause-effect relations which are simultaneous (though not necessarily instantaneous) that is NOT what defines a per se causal series. Again, what defines a per se causal series is when the causal property in question is not possessed inherently by subsequent members of the series. When (x) must borrow a power from (y) to produce (z). THAT is what makes a causal series per se, regardless of if organized hierarchically, linearly, etc. This we must always keep in mind. (Pat Flynn)​

Can you give any example of a per se cause?