It appears you base this upon virtual particles, because there are "gazilions" of virtual particles in the universe one may think there are gazilions first causes happening all the time.While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
---
Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared. — Philosophim
This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.
b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.
If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim
If God is supernatural being, then how is it possible to present any kind of evidence to non supernatural beings?If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim
It appears you base this upon virtual particles, because there are "gazilions" of virtual particles in the universe one may think there are gazilions first causes happening all the time. — SpaceDweller
Otherwise multiple first causes make no sense to me, isn't "first" cause suppose to mean literary "first" rather than one of many. — SpaceDweller
another existence, leads to infinity. — SpaceDweller
If God is supernatural being, then how is it possible to present any kind of evidence to non supernatural beings?
Only if God is not supernatural it makes sense to search for evidence. — SpaceDweller
I did not understand what you meant by this, could you explain? — Philosophim
If a God created the universe as it is today, then that means a God can interact with the world. The term "supernatural" is a descriptor when we don't know how the God did it. If a God created it, then it interacted and caused it. Therefore there should be evidence. — Philosophim
So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence. — Philosophim
So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence.
— Philosophim
That can't happen. That's why the universe is eternal. — Haglund
But if you believe a God could just happen, then logically, this could happen as well — Philosophim
if there is possibility for multiple first causes, and possibility for them to happen even today, that doesn't get rid of question, which of these first causes was very first. — SpaceDweller
I think it's important to know very first cause because that's what matters for universe coming into existence.
there may be first causes happening all the time, but what caused creation, it must have been only one cause. — SpaceDweller
you said "We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused"
if it's another existence then within another existence must have been first cause, and if it was then what is that another existence and what was first cause of it.
it may be yet another existence, and so on... leads to infinity — SpaceDweller
I think of supernatural as something that does not exist in this reality, ie. it can't be touched, seen, smelled or observed.
it exists in another reality to which we have no access. — SpaceDweller
But if you believe a God could just happen, — Philosophim
But gods are wise. They have creation power. Particles don't.
The particles can be eternal and still created by gods. I think. — Haglund
If something is eternal, meaning its always been around, by definition it can't be created right? — Philosophim
"A first cause" is merely an imaginary construct.What does it mean to be a "first cause"? — Philosophim
One might conclude that reality – its physical laws – do not prohibit a system of logic (or computational model) which entails "a first cause".What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
Depends on the type of "god". Mostly, "the idea" is fictional (or merely a logical construct) like "first cause".Where does this leave the idea of a God?
No. Only, perhaps, that a "God" is an imaginary construct like a "first cause".Can we use the idea that a first cause is logically necessary to prove there is a God?
One seems to have nothing to do with other.Does this argument deny that God can exist?
Define "God" and then provide or indicate unique evidences (e.g. changes only it causes to the natural world) which are entailed by it's predicates.So what would it take to prove a God exists now?
What does it mean to be a "first cause"?
— Philosophim
"A first cause" is merely an imaginary construct. — 180 Proof
What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
One might conclude that reality – its physical laws – do not prohibit a system of logic which entails "a first cause". — 180 Proof
Where does this leave the idea of a God?
Depends on the type of "god". Mostly, "the idea" is fictional (or merely a logical construct) like "first cause". — 180 Proof
Does this argument deny that God can exist?
One seems to have nothing to do with other. — 180 Proof
No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim
So what would it take to prove a God exists now?
Define "God" and then provide or indicate unique evidences (e.g. changes only it causes to the natural world) which are entailed by it's predicates. — 180 Proof
Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative. — Philosophim
Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. — Gnomon
That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more. — Philosophim
PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no? — Gnomon
That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund
That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. — Gnomon
Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein — Gnomon
If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? — Gnomon
The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. — Gnomon
PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no? — Gnomon
What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund
But how can thermodynamic time emerge? There gotta be a different kind of time kicking it of. — Haglund
Then there would need to be a different kind of time kicking THAT off. Then we would need a different... you get it. — Philosophim
Thermodynamic time is a different time as the time setting it off. — Haglund
A cyclic time, say. Before real particles were realized ( the emergence of TD time) there were only virtual ones, as TD time had not taken off yet. Virtual particles oscillate in time (TD time wasn't there yet, so this was an inherent fluctuation). This is an eternal fluctuation, also happening in vacuum. — Haglund
But how can this have gotten into existence? Just "not being there and then being there"? — Haglund
A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 After much debate, I am satisfied that the argument successfully stands. With this concluded, I wanted to add what this means for origin theories of our universe. — Philosophim
-Can you demonstrate the possibility of such an existence?a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality. — Philosophim
-Correct but Since our current indications (Cosmic quantum fluctuations) and logic (non existence not being a state) point to something existing eternally...why making up a first cause?Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence. — Philosophim
-Yes that is a common characteristic among explanations invoking "magic". No data...no limitations.b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be. — Philosophim
-Nothing, because Necessity NEEDS to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed logically. Logic is not an adequate way to argue for Necessary and Sufficient of metaphysical mechanisms of reality (ontology). We have made so many many mistakes in the past but some of us insist in the same tactics.What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary? — Philosophim
If we ignore all the fallacies and problems, there is one reason to limit adding up things in a "magical" cause...and that is Parsimony.a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today. — Philosophim
-Correct, as I said Unfalsifiable claims can not be tested as possible or impossible mainly because they carry no limitations. Vague concepts have zero characteristic to evaluate. They are absolute declarations posing as Panacea for all mysteries.This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be. — Philosophim
-Not only that. Our current picture of the cosmos dismiss the necessity...and obviously the sufficiency of a first cause.b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible. — Philosophim
-If you design an answer without limitations then....there aren't any. Now we know particles pop in and out of existence all the time and we can observe them by viewing the affect they have on the particles of our universe.If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. — Philosophim
Our current physics and QM point to an area, not a singular point, that would make the role of a "first particle" relevant to this discussion. Now this is way in the Metaphysical realm so any conclusion beyond this point will be, by definition pseudo philosophical/scientific.If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim
-Why use the word god when most of the people believing in this concept don't recognize the narrative you are placing it in and what happened to Parsimony? Answering Mysteries with mysteries is not philosophy.Where does this leave the idea of a God?
It is possible that there is a first cause that could have a power over existence we do not fully understand. But it is also possible that this is not the case. Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared. — Philosophim
Can we use the idea that a first cause is logically necessary to prove there is a God?
1. We cannot prove any one thing is a first cause.
2. There is no logical limitation that only one thing can be a first cause.
So while we can state it is possible for a God to be a first cause, so could any other possible thing we imagine. As such, a God as a first cause is not logically necessary, only a logical plausibility. — Philosophim
-Sloppy transition. I don't know why you connect the unfounded plausibility of a god with an argument against his existence!Does this argument deny that God can exist?
No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim
The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. T — Philosophim
-Sure, but I don't know how good it will be to explain a made up "necessity" (first cause) since our facts point to existence being a necessary state for the cosmos.(empirically and logically).,One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative — Philosophim
As I pointed out, you don't have enough data to assume non existence. — Nickolasgaspar
After all Non existence is not a state of being so it is irrational to even assume it in your effort to introduce the supernatural. — Nickolasgaspar
Again this is not a Philosophical Topic. This is a theological one. — Nickolasgaspar
a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality.
— Philosophim
-Can you demonstrate the possibility of such an existence?
-Can you demonstrate that an always existing Cosmic field needs such a concept? — Nickolasgaspar
Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence.
— Philosophim
-Correct but Since our current indications (Cosmic quantum fluctuations) and logic (non existence not being a state) point to something existing eternally...why making up a first cause? — Nickolasgaspar
b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be.
— Philosophim
-Yes that is a common characteristic among explanations invoking "magic". No data...no limitations.
Its like Phlogiston, MIasma, Philosopher's Stone, Orgone Energy ...all over again.
As I said this is NOT a topic for a philosophical discussion.
Its more of having people pointing out to you your fallacies and gaps in reasoning. — Nickolasgaspar
What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
— Philosophim
-Nothing, because Necessity NEEDS to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed logically. Logic is not an adequate way to argue for Necessary and Sufficient of metaphysical mechanisms of reality (ontology). We have made so many many mistakes in the past but some of us insist in the same tactics. — Nickolasgaspar
a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
— Philosophim
If we ignore all the fallacies and problems, there is one reason to limit adding up things in a "magical" cause...and that is Parsimony. — Nickolasgaspar
This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.
— Philosophim
-Correct, as I said Unfalsifiable claims can not be tested as possible or impossible mainly because they carry no limitations. Vague concepts have zero characteristic to evaluate. They are absolute declarations posing as Panacea for all mysteries.
Again this is not philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
-If you design an answer without limitations then....there aren't any. Now we know particles pop in and out of existence all the time and we can observe them by viewing the affect they have on the particles of our universe.
When you use scientific knowledge to argue about your cosmology (particle with velocity) I suggest to accept all the epistemology and avoid cherry picking aspects that suit a specific narrative. Facts are facts and should be respected as a whole. — Nickolasgaspar
The Catholic Scholastics were arguing in favor of their bible-god : paradoxically, both a timeless abstract concept, and a historical personality acting in space-time. But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. So, the later expansion of human scientific knowledge did not answer the philosophical question of "why something instead of nothing". The modern Big Bang theory has given substance to what was just an intuition in ancient times : the contingency (dependence) of our space-time existence on a priori causation.Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made. — Philosophim
-Well read again what you wrote. "non-existence cannot be either." You literary put "non existence" and "be" in the same sentence. If we are talking about any type or state of being then we are not talking about non being (non existence).Agreed, but you don't have enough data to assume that non-existence cannot be either. Space is assumed in everything we measure. What you're proposing is an ether, which has not been proven either. — Philosophim
-This is exactly what I pointed out in your first comment....you can not state that non existence is a state of being because its the lack of being.No, non-existence would be a lack of being. The opposite of the state of being. I am not introducing the supernatural here, other people are. If you believe a first cause is supernatural, I'm noting it is a natural logical necessity. — Philosophim
-To be precise its only a theological when you assume the supernatural to be real and to play the role of the first cause.No, it is not a theological one. This is the philosophical topic of what we can logically conclude if at least one first cause is a necessary logical requirement. Origin stories are often tied in with a philosophical God, of which I use here. This is in no way theological, as I am not attributing to any one theology in this discussion. — Philosophim
-I asked you how can you prove these claims and you point me to a topic with the condition that I need to accept what you need to prove!!!!See here for the proof. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 This topic assumes you agree with the proof. If you do not agree with the proof, feel free to put your response there and I'll discuss. This topic is intended with the idea that you accept a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim
-The answer is We don't know and we can not assume or draw an conclusions from something we can not investigate. If something exists for ever, (a quantum noise with fluctuations) it doesn't demand a first cause. What it needs a first case is processes that rise from those fluctuations and their build ups, like our universe.And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence. — Philosophim
If something exists eternally, then it is not caused by anything prior. That itself would be a first cause. And again, your denial of non-existence is not logical, only a belief. — Philosophim
-Since I addressed every single paragraph you already know that I read and understood the entire topic. Again I am only pointing out that The god hypothesis can not be consider plausible if one first demonstrates it to be possible. The examples I gave show this problem with other "philosophical artifacts" that were believed to be plausible explanations but turned out to be impossible or at least u necessary.This is a common problem among atheists who think I'm making an argument for God. Please do not let your emotions prevent you from reading and understanding the entire topic. Read the referenced topic if you believe it is illogical for me to conclude a first cause is logically necessary. — Philosophim
Logical necessity is demonstrated with abstract logic. Existential necessity is demonstrated objectively. I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary. — Philosophim
-The problem is that by using logic independent of available facts, we can conclude at anything we want , based on our biases and predispositions.What we logically conclude may not exist when tested, I think that is a given all can agree on. If you want to understand why I conclude a first cause is logically necessary, again, reference the OP where I go over that logic. — Philosophim
-You have a bigger problem because our current facts do not demand a first cause for the state of existence. You multiply entities that are unecessary to explain existence.The idea I presented is the most simple and necessary explanation. You can't just claim I'm not using Occum's Razor here, please explain why you believe there cannot be more than one first cause under the logic I presented? — Philosophim
-I am not sure you understand what it means for a claim to be falsifiable. You need to present a way that we can test and objectively falsify your metaphysical claim on first cause.The falsifiability of any one thing that is claimed as a first cause, is that it has something prior that caused it. — Philosophim
-Yes...those are the reasons why your claim is UNFALSIFIABLE! Again I am not sure you fully understand this criterion.All I noted is that while there are falsifiable states, for some, it may be impossible to test. That is not due to a lack of falsifiability, it is due to a lack of information and testing capability. Concluding our limitations in the ability to test something is a fine and valid point in logic and science. — Philosophim
This argument was not done with scientific knowledge. This was simply the logical consequence of examining what a first cause would entail. — Philosophim
You are making a lot of assumptions and mistakes by not understanding the argument. Seek to understand first please, then feel free to critique — Philosophim
-You are dodging the most important critique of your arguments and this is why your reply was so problematic. I hope this points help you understand the gaps in your reasoning and why this is NOT a philosophical topic.The rest of your points irrelevant, because you are making points without understanding the argument. Once you examine the referenced OP (and possibly comment there) and demonstrate that you also understand the OP of this argument, then we'll see if the rest of your points even need to be addressed. — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.