For the reason I described - I thought my point was not central to your argument and I didn't want to send your discussion off on a tangent. — T Clark

Not a worry. We're here to discuss philosophy, and I'm interested to see other people's take.

Most of our understanding of the world is based on statistical effects. It's not the action of two balls on a pool table, it's the mass action of trillions of molecules in a tank. — T Clark

I agree 100%. I start by keeping things simple until people want to push it to the next level. In the same vein, there is nothing to necessitate there only be one first cause. There could have been many first causes. In theory, there could be first causes happening in the universe now that we're unaware of. But much like multiverse theory, its something we really can't test easily, if at all.

I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

That's just my take on the issue. — Shawn

A good conversation then. We'll have to go our own way with our own beliefs. I appreciate you taking the topic seriously. Have a good day!

Hi Tim. Yes, this OP presupposed some information that absolutely should be defined.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state of existence. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

The premise has been twice refuted by logic and physics, therefore your argument fails. Period. Stop kidding yourself – the OP is that weak. There's nothing more to discuss unless you adopt another unrefuted premise and thereby make (at least) a valid argument. — 180 Proof

It would be nice to see that refutation by logic and physics. And to hear what you think the premise actually is. But if you cannot provide it, I have no choice but to think you either do not have that refutation by logic and physics, or you don't understand the premise. Later.

Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example? — Shawn

What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"

"Nothing" cannot cause something. That we logically know to be true. The argument shows that the only thing which must necessarily be, is that something within our universe has no reason for its existence, besides the fact of its existence. It has no prior cause for being. I note that this is logically necessary, because the only alternative that I can think of, "infinite regression" does not in fact have a prior reason as to why the universe should be infinitely regressive.

I think the opening for criticism here, is whether I am correct on that last part. What do you think? Can you point out a flaw there?

Gibberish. Sorry, man. You've no evidence I didn't read your argument but you give plently that you haven't read my 2 logical and physical counter-arguments aimed directly as your premise. You expect a conversation and yet haven't thought through either what you're saying or the substance of oppositions to it. :meh: — 180 Proof

Maybe you missed my most recent reply. Yes, I noted you linked the kalem argument and an argument about plank space. Neither of those arguments addressed the point I am making. Now, maybe they did. Feel free to point out specifically the parts of the argument that are countered by those arguments. If I am wrong, I will apologize without shame.

Further, one of your original posts I quoted you added some details to after. I caught the edit, and addressed them in my prior post. Again, no worry if we got off on the wrong foot or we misunderstood each other's intentions. All I want is a conversation from people who can examine the argument and provide good criticism for conversation.

But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it? — Shawn

Mind stating which specific ex nihilo argument contradicts the points here? I just need more specifics, I am enjoying your points.

I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no? — Shawn

There is no reason prior to observation, to believe that there is some prior causality to anything. It is the belief that there must be an X that drives us to look for that X. Hume called our belief in causality a "habit of the mind". While I disagree that we cannot eventually know causality upon study, the idea that there must be a prior causality is not a proven statement, but a belief. My conclusion here is that we can be logically certain that eventually there is something within the chain of causality that is not caused by anything prior.

I thought you said you read it? :rofl: — Artemis

I thought you said it was just a book recommendation? Troll elsewhere Artemis.

Phishing for more credit than you deserve, friend, ain't the way to get it. — 180 Proof

It wasn't the intention. You gave me a counter to the Kalem argument as a counter to my argument, when my argument, wait for it...is a counter to the Kalem argument. I expect better of a long time forum goer as yourself to catch yourself on mistakes when pointed out, not double down.

However...I noticed you edited one of your earlier posts to include some actual substance. If we discuss this way, I don't care about the previous stuff. I just want a good conversation.

There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is.
— Philosophim
This is my counter to the OP's premises.

It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.
"The type of origin we invent" matters to degree it is consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. Logic, as it were, is merely the syntax of any "origin we invent" and not metaphysically determinative as you apparently to believe. — 180 Proof

Yes, I agree that the type of origin we invent must be consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. I note this in part 4 when describing an alpha. You can lead up the chain of causality to find the origin. The question is not about a specific origin like the big bang or plank space. It is the logical conclusion that there must be an origin of explanations that eventually arrives at the conclusion, "It just is".

The big bang, if it is the first cause, is. But even if we conceptualize the idea that there is infinite regression, the reason for why there is infinite regression does not have a prior cause, it simply is. Meaning that logically, there is something in our universe that has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

Relax, it was just a book recommendation. — Artemis

Not pertinent to the discussion. If you want to discuss book recommendations, I'm sure there's a post somewhere that would be happy to have you.

I'd say that there's a mistake of saying a first cause instead of a 'prior' cause.

Besides the Principle of Sufficient Reason can only (without appeal to metaphysics) posit a prior cause. — Shawn

I'm a little confused. A prior cause is X above. A first cause would have no prior cause, which I designate alpha.

What "strawmen"? Stop special pleading ... Your premise is incoherent, therefore the argument fails. QED. — 180 Proof

Disappointing. You made a mistake in thinking it was a particular topic that it is not, and instead of bothering to read it and enter the conversation, you've doubled down on not reading it, and insisting its something that it is not. I expected better.

See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason" — Artemis

That's a rather large topic that covers many points. You'll need to narrow down what specific points counter my reasons if we're to have a meaningful conversation. I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter.

The emergence of time must be preceded by time. — Verdi

According to my argument, no. To disprove this, you either need to show a flaw in my logic, or show why it is logically necessary that the emergence of time must be preceded by time.

The best we can say is that the universe is all there is, unless the multiverse theory happens to be true, which is difficult to test at the moment. — Manuel

No disagreement.

If it is infinite however, it was never formed, it just is. — Manuel

Yes, I'm using the word "formed" but perhaps "incepted"? would be a better word? I originally wrote, "It just is" repeatedly in the lines, and while accurate, I felt I needed a word to encapsulate that phrase. So yes, that is the crux of the argument. If a universe is infinitely regressive, or finitely regressive, the reason for this is, "It just is." There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is. It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.

I just wanted it to be clear that your assumption is not self-evident. — T Clark

Which if you feel that way, is fine. But why? You simply said, "I don't agree." and left it at that! I want other viewpoints other than my own. If you just say "No" and walk away, I'll never know if your view point is right.

No, sir, I also read your opening sentence: — 180 Proof

Sigh. For shame 180. I am not arguing the Kalem cosmological argument. It is irrelevant whether it is plank state or big bang. Why all the effort to not read and comment on the logic of the argument, instead of just reading and commenting on the logic of the argument? Enough straw men please?

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

Try to think about it from their point of view. You're trying to find people who have experience with cows who have had the same problem as yourself. You're looking for answers from people with results. As a practical rancher, you aren't looking for untested hypotheticals, you are looking for tested solutions that you can implement so that you minimize the time and cost of experimenting yourself.

Dismissing untested hypotheticals when you are looking for tested solutions is not narrow minded. Trying the most likely solutions then working your way to the unlikely is efficient. I'll use disease diagnosis as an example. A new Dr. sees a patient who has a high temperature and chills. It could be several possibilities. The new Dr. asks a Sr. Dr., "New diseases pop up in Africa all the time, and he was in Africa for a day. Maybe its a new disease?" The Dr. is going to say, "Why don't we first see if it matches a disease we know about first before seeing if its something new?"

Its plausible the patient has a new disease. But we don't know if its possible, as there may very well not be any new disease. So first you start with the most likely, then work your way down. Now if the rancher had tried every reasonable possibility they could think of, like water, food quality, and cow stress, then maybe they could take the substantial cost of moving their cows to a new location. The rancher was not being closed minded or unscientific, they were being practical.

And as a question for yourself, are you trying to find evidence that fits your theory, or are you trying to find evidence that contradicts your theory? Before casting aspersions on the rancher, apply the scientific mentality to your own questions at this time, and see what you come up with. Try to prove yourself wrong, and see if it is impossible.

Maybe this is the case, maybe it's not. We have to "stop the buck" somewhere otherwise we go down an infinite chain of postulates. We don't know enough to say either is the case. — Manuel

Yes, you understand this part then. What I am proposing are plausibilities. Its either "Infinitely Regressive", or "Finitely regressive". We don't know for sure which is real. So what I'm doing is saying, "Lets pretend one is real, what logical conclusions can we reach or not reach?"

An argument could be made for both needing a first cause (or an uncaused cause) or not needing one, in the case the universe is actually infinite. — Manuel

The argument that I'm making is that yes, the universe could be finitely or infinitely regressive, but that there logically can be no cause for why this should be. Many people say, "The universe could not have formed on its own," but my conclusion is, "The universe necessarily formed on its own".

No. The relevance of precision in this case is that precise measurement of Mercury's orbit showed that Newton's theory was not imprecise but wrong. — T Clark

Interestingly enough, Newton wasn't wrong. It was simply not precise enough for large bodies. You can take the theory of relativity and reduce it down to Newton's equation for regular sized bodies. It is evidence that certain equations are useful for particular scales, but breakdown in others.

Depends on how we think of cause. It's not impossible that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Someone can say that makes no sense at all, but it could be the case for all we know. — Manuel

According to my OP, I conclude that it is logically necessary that the universe came into being for no reason or cause. Do I make a good case for it?

I don't follow the logic of your discussion, but that doesn't matter, since I don't see why this is true. — T Clark

Fair enough, I am presupposing some knowledge here.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

Y

My post simply shows that "first ... logically necessary" is incoherent. — 180 Proof

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. The title is just something to get people to click on it and read the post. Feel free to read the post, then let me know if my title was inappropriate.

My advice for serious philosophical conclusions is to heed your own words.

As I’ve said many times, failure to carefully define terms is the primary failing of many of the discussions on the forum. — T Clark

Ask the person who you're debating with what they mean by metaphysics. Get them to define their particular terms. Phrases are digests of complex simple ideas. The act of doing philosophy should be to breaking down those phrases into complex simple terms with the person who you are discussing with. You're not debating the phrase, you're debating the underlying logical components. Those transcend any labels or ideologies.

The universe doesn't give a damn if it follows our logic or not. — Manuel

That's an interesting conclusion. If you read it and understood the premise, I would say it was clever. Feel free to explain why its clever within the confines of the OP, and I'll grant it.

Aw, don't do me like that 180 Proof. I usually love your wit and insight. Let me get you into the fun version of yourself.

So technically, no, a first number is not logically necessary. Considering we can have negative numbers, and the creation of numbers is a formula that can be applied without limitation, there is no "first" number.

First integer? Sure, that would be one. Of course, years later, 0 was invented, and that could be argued as the "first" integer. So would it be the first created integer, or the first integer in numeric order?

In otherwords, even though I considered your post silly, I addressed it seriously for fun. Do the same to my post please.

In the case of magnetism and cows drinking, it is also a conspiracy to just state that cows are not affected in their drinking behavior by magnetic fields. I offered an article which showed that cows are affected by such a field, which was denied from the start, and everything suggesting it could be the case was thrown of the table. — Verdi

Just to be clear on specifics, you mentioned there was an article that suggested cows were affected by magnetic fields. Was it a scientific article? Did it conclude that it would affect how they drank water? Did you link that article to the person so they could read it themself?

If you answered "No" to any of those, then the other person was in their rights for saying, "That doesn't apply to my situation." Scientific discovery requires a massive amount of time to conclude, and the average lay person should not be expected to consider all plausibilities. If I claimed unicorns caused the cows to drink less water, but did not provide a legitimate scientific paper, any person would be within their rights to dismiss it. A conspiracy goes out of its way to prove an extremely unlikely scenario. A dismissal of an extremely unlikely scenario prior to examining all other much more likely scenarios first is simply an efficient use of time while betting on more favorable odds.

We cannot challenge you on your accusation, because you have not defined what "Love" is first. You could be thinking of a definition that is different from the rest of us. Think about what you believe love is as a definition first. If you cannot think of one, then you really have the question, "What is love?" I'll keep an eye out for your answer.

A look at science can help us identify a conspiracy. Science seeks to disprove its hypothesis. If for example I say, "Cows do not drink water at this location because of a change in the magnetic field," then I would set up an experiment to try to disprove this, NOT prove it. You can try to disprove it by setting up several different patches of cows in different magnetic fields around the world, while ensuring all other variables like "Water quality, stress of the cows, food quality, etc" are all kept the same. As you think of more things that could disprove your hypothesis, you add more experiments.

A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. They take a compass, see that the magnetic field is different from "normal", and conclude that must be why the cows are drinking less. They don't check any other evidence that might disprove the theory, such as water quality, food quality, etc. They have a conclusion they WANT to reach, and only seek evidence that confirms that conclusion while throwing away, or not looking for any evidence that might disprove what they want to believe.

It's like saying the more precise I want to be about what good is in (say) utilitarianism, the more likely it is that I'll have to abandon utilitarianism and develop a totally novel theory that doesn't look anything like utilitarianism. — TheMadFool

You have made a step into the next level of philosophical thinking. Yes, the reality of many "ideologies" is they are imprecise but easy to digest ideas to be used as guidelines. They work for general use, but begin to fail when you want clarifications on specifics. Newton's theory of gravity is a fantastic example. Newton's gravity works for almost all of our daily experiences on Earth with bodies to our scale. It begins to break down when bodies become incredibly large, like solar systems, or incredibly small, like the sub atomic level.

Philosophy is the same. Utilitarianism is fine as a general ideology for perhaps your day to day thinking and living. But when greater precision is needed, when the scale changes, more questions than answers begin to form.

A belief in ideologies is for the beginners of philosophy. It is for the casual thinker that needs a rationale or inspiration to live or change the way they live. Just as the true physicist understands that the layman's concept of physics is not functional for in depth discoveries, and that it is merely an attempt to explain what is not fully translatable to English, so does the true philosopher understand ideologies are digests, and ultimately worthless labels when you are ready to dive into the deep logic underpining their conclusions.

You might want to hear from my experiences. I have a master's in philosophy. You know what I do years later? I program.

First, do not go into philosophy as a field if you merely "like it". If you like reading philosophy, you are a fan. A fan is not a career. Can you think of new philosophy? Can you constantly write papers at extremely high quality to ensure you don't get fired? Are you willing to get a Phd, work at a pauper's salary for years until you MIGHT get that lucky teaching job halfway across the country for a tradesman's salary?

I say this, because many people go into the field thinking its "easy". It is NOT easy. It is not about being a fan of philosophy. It is about being a person who loves to think on philosophical subjects, even at personal financial detriment. Even when the prospect for failure is high.

Once you get to the master's/ Phd level, you will begin to realize how stilted the field also is. You will be forced to read and write on people who have been disproven for years. You will be discouraged to write your own philosophy. You will be forced to tie it to ancient writings that no longer apply to today's world. It is a very traditional field, and unwelcoming to thought's that are generate purely on your own.

You may here many people say, "Do what you love as a career." That is absolute horse manure stated by people who are financially successful or at the top of their career after years of work and luck. It ignores the mountain of bodies behind those people who could not make it and would have had a MUCH better life if they had picked a career based on things like "Demand in the marketplace, career prospects, salary, quality of life, etc."

Only go into philosophy if it is a passion. If you write philosophy on your own for hours at a time, eager to think about the problems that people have not solved for centuries. Eager to be your own worst critic, and is NOT impressed by your own cleverness or intelligence. Be honest with yourself, and make sure you're not considering at "fun" or an "easy out". You know yourself.

And finally, if you think, "Well I don't need to be outstanding, I can just be mediocre or slightly above average", you will not succeed. There are plenty of jobs you can be mediocre in or slightly above average and live well. Philosophy is not one of them.

Prishon, defining things does not destroy the thing itself. In fact, if you find you cannot define something, it's an indicator that you need to think carefully about what you are saying, or that the idea is fiction, and does not exist.

Again, the examples are fine, but you haven't defined what you mean by reality. That means I am left to draw my own conclusions by what you mean, and I might be off.

It seems to me you are describing descriptions of reality invented by humans. These descriptions do not necessarily represent reality, as reality is generally known as what simply exists. That's why it's important for you to define what YOU mean by reality, as I may not be addressing your intentions.

Each are tools that are used for specific problems based on the culture and needs of your society. Free markets at their extreme are simply the idea that I can sell anything I want to anyone else without regulation or taxes.
A friend says, "Hey, mind selling me that coffee mug?" I say, "Sure, 3 dollars", and we both have full free will to accept, amend, or reject the trade.
This is a pretty good thing. Imagine a world in which I had to also add 8% tax, fill out a form and receipt, and make sure the cup passed some standard regulation before offer of sale.
Now does a completely free market scale as you introduce more people? Of COURSE not. But when we can keep aspects of free markets where possible, it makes trade more manageable for the seller. Since its less work to sell, less time and effort is needed to do business, thus increasing profits.

I appreciate the examples, but you still need to provide a definition so that we can have a foundation of conversation to stand on. Why are they separate realities? What makes a reality, a reality?

Yes, you can deny the claim that everything must have a prior cause, because it cannot be proven that everything has a prior cause. In fact, we can conclude the opposite.
Let us say the universe is full of infinitely regressive causality. It's existed infinitely versus having a finite starting point. This universe is the sum of everything. All possible worlds, universes, God's etc. We cannot introduce anything outside of this, it's everything that exists.
One question springs to mind. Why does that universe exist as is? Surely we can imagine things existing differently. But there is nothing outside of this infinite universe. Any outside cause you want to introduce is merged within the set, and we arrive at the same question again.
The answer is simple. This universe is the way it is, because it is. There is no outside reason. It exists, because it does. It is an uncaused universe not bound to any rules outside of itself. Since this is concluded with an infinite universe, and the same conclusion happens with a finite universe, we can only conclude that the reason for any universe existing boils down to the fact that it exists. The origin of any universes existence, is uncaused. This is the only logical conclusion we can arrive at.

To answer your question, could you define what you mean by a reality? An example of at least two types that fit your definition would be nice.

First, I have to say your post is absolutely fantastic. While many atheists may feel like you, it seems rare that they voice such ideas.

So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! — dimosthenis9

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? — dimosthenis9

Great questions. A lot of times people leap on the moral aspect of religion. I think that what is even stronger than the moral aspect of religion, is the social element of religion. Religion gives you community, belonginess, and a greater purpose not only for you, but those around you. It encourages you to reach out to other people and bring them to the light. It is a place you can reach out to for emotional support.

I think that's what some atheists miss when they focus on the "logic" of a religion. They'll see a religion do something immoral, and wonder why anyone would do that. "Surely they must be stupid!" they think. I don't think atheists are any more intelligent than people who believe in a religion. What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them.

But many people do. They want the support group. The social safety net. To sing in the choir. To feel like they are part of not just some abstract plan that is greater than themselves, but the real and present group of people that they are attending and finding friends with. To question God is to question those bonds. To risk losing the place you might find solace in. That is very hard for people to leave.

Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. I believe the internet has opened a way for people to socialize more easily, and the anonymity can replace the need for a place to confide in one's "sins". Still, it lacks the human touch. The weekly meeting that is virtually free to no cost to personally attend for most people.

Could we create an alternative to this? Perhaps an enterprising person could. The irony of course is since many atheists are independent and don't need that social group as much, they're less likely to form and congregate a large enough group that could gain the attention it needs as a viable alternative to church.

Again, great discussion topic.

Suppose there's a truth regarding, say, God in a 3D world. Call this G. We, in our 2D world, can only see shadows of G. Theists believe God exists (square shadow) and atheists believe God doesn't exist (circle shadow). Put the two parties on the same stage and we have a contradiction: God exists & God doesn't exist (square circle). — TheMadFool

That's still not a contradiction though. That is a contradiction of beliefs, but not of facts. In the theists case, there is a God. But honestly, neither the atheists nor theists know of God, because they can only see parts.

In their particular case, the flashes of God revealing themselves to people would be the only thing they could agree exists. Atheists cannot deny it exists if its observable, but they might call it something different than a theist would. A theist might say its God, an atheist might say its the Goldbring effect. Each might have some extra beliefs or connotations they attach to the God parts, but at the end of the day, the only thing they really know are that these things exist.

Its like seeing part of a square, and saying you know a square. You can't know what a square is until you see it, and you define it in a way that is provable and repeatable. The 2D shapes are not different people's or cultures opinions of squares or circles either. They are clearly defined and provable entities. One person might say, "Squares come from God," and another might say, "Squares are a natural formation," but all of that is irrelevant for what IS, and that is that it is a square.

Perspective merely gives you a portion of what you can know. When you claim the knowledge of what you have gives you knowledge outside of your perspective, that is a failure of reasoning and knowledge, not a contradiction with another view point.

But I am a person who believes that contradictions are indicators of what is not real. Reality has no contradictions. Apparent contradictions are when a person is confused or misinformed about reality. I believe you either have the truth, a portion of the truth, or you hold beliefs which aren't true. Two people cannot hold two contradictory truths. One is right, or both are wrong. I see the poetry in what you mean by Anekantavada, but it does not hold up on technical scrutiny.