Frankly I don't have it in me to knowingly disrupt someones deep rooted belief or faith in something that keeps them grounded in their daily life. Even if that faith is in faithlessness itself. — Outlander
More as a curiosity than an argument, there's Hawking's suggestion. We can have an infinite causal chain in a finite time.
The event at time 1 is caused by the event at time ½, which in turn is caused by the event at time ¼, and so on. Every event in the causal chain has a cause, without a first cause, in a finite time, and without reaching zero.
Looking forward to the replies... — Banno
Well, they both use limits, if that's what you are after. — Banno
I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible. — Devans99
What's odd, as ↪Echarmion pointed out, is that Devans99 invokes an uncaused cause when it suits him. So he can say
I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible.
— Devans99
...apparently without seeing how convenient this argument is. — Banno
I'll stick with the unknown... and hence, my agnosticism. — creativesoul
Time is [...] — Devans99
I failto see any other alternatives to timelessness: FACT - time has a start. FACT: the start of time was caused by something external to time. FACT: change can somehow take place outside of time. — Devans99
I know this is an old argument that has been with us for 1000s of years. Most memorably, St Thomas Aquinas recounted it as his 2nd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. But I feel it is worth revisiting - it is almost certainly correct.
Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?
If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.
Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.
Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.
We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99
The Cause of space-time is "first" in the sense of "ultimate", not merely the first of a series. Logically, the Creator of our evolving universe must be prior-to the big-bang emergence of space-time, hence Eternal, and external to the Physical universe, hence Metaphysical. Prior, not in time, but in logical order.
Ultimate : a final or fundamental fact or principle
Prior : existing or coming before in time, order, or importance — Gnomon
In short i agree with you. — christian2017
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.