There is this excellent site if you have not come across it:

https://plato.stanford.edu

Right. So why on earth do you keep re-posting the same argument? — Isaac

I have not posted an argument for a first cause / commentary on the 5 ways before. I'm not sure what you mean?

If the entire mathematical world disagreeing with you isn't enough to dissuade you from your position, then what possible use to you could dissenting opinion on an Internet forum be? — Isaac

I have barely mentioned maths/infinity in the OP - what do you mean?

And if dissenting opinion is of no use to you, then why post at all. You clearly already agree with your own conclusion, it makes no difference to you if the entire world disagrees. What is there left to discuss? — Isaac

I hope that by reviewing dissenting opinion that we can arrive at the truth of the proposition.

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far.

I wrote out in full here, points 1-6:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

I'm not quite sure I have the tools to do a pictorial representation.

Obviously the first cause argument can be viewed as an inverted pyramid or inverted hierarchy of causes, the present day being the pyramid base, the first cause being the tip of the pyramid.

But I don't see how you can get from here to the claim that the first cause has to be timeless — PossibleAaran

I'd argue that it is impossible for something to exist 'always' in time; it would have no start so none of it would exist. So therefore the first cause has to be beyond time, beyond causation. That is the only way to avoid an endless infinite regress of time stretching back into the past.

Thanks for hearing the argument out!

It is really an extension of an old idea, the prime mover. So I can't claim to have solved this old problem myself.

Also I've carefully restricted myself to a 'timeless first cause'. That is someway short of a proof of God I feel.

Well there is the Big Bang. Looks unnatural. Natural things come in pluralities whereas the Big Bang is a singleton. Unnatural. Also very low entropy at the Big Bang, unnatural. Also the way space itself is expanding at just the right speed to stop gravity causing a collapse is also unnatural - not any normal sort of explosion.

Think about it this way, the question 'was the universe created?' is a 50/50 call, so it should not be likely dismissed.

But time has a start. Suggesting 'everything' (in terms of all particles) had a start co-incidental with that... the Big Bang. The Big Bang sure looks like a first cause to me.

The way time works, if you don't have a first cause, you have an infinite regress, which is impossible.

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one. — Frank Apisa

In that case then the arguments Thomas Aquinas and I put forward are arguments for God. It's just most people's definition include the 3Os - the attributes of God need a separate thread probably.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest. — Frank Apisa

But with a timeless first cause, there is no infinite regress.

I'd reiterate, there are many logical and empirical arguments for a prime mover. I have yet to see a logical argument against a prime mover that passes muster. To disprove God, you could prove the universe is not a creation for example.

The fact that the prime mover has such a history, from Aristotle on, famous philosophers have commented on it. The argument has stood the test of time IMO. It has fascinated mankind down the ages. And it is at heart, a logical argument.

I believe science backs my position, both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Eternal Inflation posit a first cause.

In order to prove God's existence, you must first define the term 'God'. What is your definition?

There is a problem with these types of discussions on keeping things scientific rather than religious. Hence I settled on 'first cause' rather than 'God' for the title of the OP. God is not a well defined entity and depending on your definition of God, may not be amendable to the scientific method at all (the 3Os etc...).

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic. — Frank Apisa

I would also point to my supporting arguments here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

That existing for infinity is impossible.

I would point to the Phlogiston theory as an example of science getting it badly wrong for a long period of time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Then we have the theory of aether. More recently, I can point to a belief in the existence of Actual Infinity as science going astray.

That is how science works; someone puts up a theory, and some theories get knocked down in the fullness of time. Two steps forward, one step back...

Ancient philosophy is a mess of glaring mistakes, scientific ignorance, intellectual deficit, irrationality and devotion to mythology or popularity. — whollyrolling

In the fullness of time, it will become apparent that much of what we believe today is wrong. That still does not invalidate the usefulness of the portion of todays knowledge that is not wrong. The same argument applies to ancient sources.

Sorry. Can't edit it now.

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can. — Frank Apisa

I would reference points 1 through 6 here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

As proof that things cannot 'exist forever'. Thomas Aquinas was of the same mind I believe.

Bump to get more votes (5 votes is not statistically significant).

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause — Frank Apisa

I don't understand what you mean. I was caused by my parents meaning I was not the first cause for example...

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also. — Frank Apisa

If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.) — Frank Apisa

I am trying to establish whether a first cause exists as that is a more logical and scientific question that the ill defined question of whether there is a God or not.

It is true they are full of errors, but my point still stands that the most obvious arguments would be documented first. In the case of prime mover/first cause arguments, they go right back to Aristotle. And the reasoning is still sound (hence people still talk about them).

So ancient sources are to be taken with a piece of salt but still respected.

This is what makes ancient philosophy so lasting, so impossible to defeat, so impressive and amazing. — whollyrolling

It tends to be that the most obvious arguments are the most convincing also and also are the first arguments to be documented chronologically. So we can't really ignore the classics.

I agree, that's why I've restricted my claims to a first cause. Trying to get from that to 'God' requires a definition of God, which is probably another thread.

With eternalism, the past is real in some sense. I wonder if the ghosts that are reported across many different cultures are somehow accessing the past sort of like a video recording. Eternalists hold that Socrates still exists, maybe in some sense what could be called his spirit does.

It was the only justification for a spirit world I could think of. I was approaching the problem from if you could justify the existence of one spirit (IE God) then maybe other spirits are possible too.

Spacetime was apparently created in the Big Bang. What created it? Something not of spacetime. Could that something be non-material?

When you say 'can never be reached'? In what sense can we reach the end of time? Do you mean disconnected in spacetime somehow from us?

Again you come up with no counter arguments... that you have none I will have to assume.

What do you have in mind? Time as a linear sequence that supports causation would that change?

The only problem is that you don't know there is one. You stubbornly cling to arguments previously shown to be faulty, and you want to act like an amnesiac in this respect. — S

You always say my arguments have been proved false elsewhere but won't give a link to where.

There must be a first cause: time stretching back forever is an impossible infinite regress. Even if we introduce 'time2' and have that create 'time' we still end up in an infinite regress (time3, time4...). Everything in time is subject to causation, the only way out of this is to have a timeless first cause.

Plus my argument in the OP for a first cause. Plus the start of time implies a timeless first cause. None of these arguments have you addressed here or elsewhere.

Yes. Once it is recognised that the first cause has no cause, it becomes clear the only possible answer is 'no reason'.

Like I said, time is finite. We have evidence of only one Big Bang and strong reasons to suspect it is coincidental with the start of time.

If there is a multiverse then the start of time would be co-incidental with the start of the multiverse. The multiverse should also be finite.

We have not succumbed to infinite density because time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). That start was likely co-incidental with the Big Bang.

For example, after the super and mega novas (and even the big bang) there follows a considerable period of 'calming' sorta like regaining equilibrium. Therefore, it may be that even with infinite time and a continued occurrence of big bangs, the equilibrium may still be maintained — BrianW

Periods of equilibrium or no, I don't see how the infinite density problem can be avoided.

I honestly am not in the habit of raising busted arguments.

Hitchen's razor. You have yet to justify your starting point. — S

I have. It is correct, in the presence of no evidence either way, to start at 50/50 for an estimate of an unknown boolean proposition with normally distributed answers.

You can't build on thin air. — S

Fantastic counter argument :(

But what if the coin was six dimensional, had four faces, magic powers, ate cornflakes for breakfast, but also not conflakes for breakfast, and was made of rubber and also cake, but was also a hippopotamus? Why can't we just admit we don't know what side it will land on? — StreetlightX

You can think of induction as a two stage process:

- Make an initial guess. 50/50 is appropriate for boolean propositions
- Refine the guess in the light of the evidence for/against the proposition

I think this is maybe what our brains do subconsciously for us all the time.

Please explain the flaws...

Well I have argument that builds on the 50/50 and concludes that there is a 91% chance that the universe is a creation:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269837

Creation implies a creator. So I think for some people, these two questions (creator/god) are similar, for other people they are very different. It depends on the definition of God... if its 'magical' in some sense (3Os) then they are different questions in my opinion. But for some people, with some types of definition of God, the question 'Is there a God?' can be tackled inductivity.