Let's try this way. Let's assume you have as claimed logically proven the universe must have had a first cause. Right away the "logical" leaps out: why exactly is it there? — tim wood

Certainly. If you have not read the original OP, it will be necessary at this point. I don't want to re-paste the whole thing. =)

4. The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. In other words, you cannot claim "Its not possible for X to exist." To say there existed such a rule would entail "X exists because of Y". But there is no Y when X is a first cause. This can mean a first cause could be anything without limitation. X as a prime cause does not follow any rules besides the fact of its own existence. — Philosophim

But more simply, given it's logically proven, how do you get from there to any assertion that it applies to the universe? — tim wood

It is easiest to re-read points 1-6 again.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yours is a theology. — tim wood

Tim wood, I am not a theologist. Have you read the OP? I get the feeling you are coming to this thread with assumptions and letting it color your outlook. I say this because you do not seem to be addressing the points made. This is why I am reluctant to repost things already written in the OP. It seems you are taking point 4 out of context, when it was intended as a reminder within the context of the argument. Please read points 1 through 6 and point out where the flaw is in the points themselves, otherwise I feel we will both be on different ideas, and inadvertently be discussing straw men.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

To Tim's list I would also add

d. Things can exist without a prior cause

You pre-suppose cause. I don't. Make me. That is, I do not grant #1 — tim wood

Ha ha! I can't make anyone agree to anything. But we can discuss and you can come to your own conclusions. Now that we're on the same page, let me address an earlier point you made.

The view I invite you to share is of something like William James's "blooming, buzzing confusion" - the world as. In such a view cause is manifestly one of many different kinds of templates we in our reason overlay the world with, to create our own sense of it - which makes it not any part of the world primordially. Perhaps most critically expressed, cause is a necessary part of a model, but not part of reality. Whatever depends on cause, then, is in at least that respect, not in reality. — tim wood

Here we are entering into Epistemology, and perhaps more specifically, how language represents the world. While this could explode into its own topic, I'm going to try to focus it for our purposes. In short, people can invent any language, words, or concepts they want. These can apply to reality, or they can be what we call "imaginary". Words and concepts that apply to reality and are not contradicted by reality, are considered viable concepts that apply to reality. This is science in a nutshell. While it is impossible to prove that the conceptual overlay is 100% absolutely true, it is the only reasonable conclusion as to what is true that can be drawn from the information at hand.

I have explained causality as essentially a state model of existential history. To break it down into its simple claims: There is history. We can evaluate and divide that history through our concepts of time. We are able to evaluate existence before a point in history, and at a point in history. Causality is the notion that a historical prior point leads to another later point on the timeline. From this we normally construct rules and reasons in the hopes such similar events are able to occur again, and thus we gain a greater control over nature. Physics for example. Without an understanding of physics, we would not be able to type the words on this electronic format that is zipped over elections on the internet.

But let us go even simpler. Causality is the idea that there must be a prior state that causes a current state to be. And that if that prior state did not occur, then the current state of a thing could not be. But perhaps it IS possible that a current state of a thing, does not require the existence of a prior state. Like you say, perhaps causality is not fundamentally necessary. In this case, I use the language, "First cause". Of course, I am assuming that this first cause will cause other things to happen. But what is interesting, is even if I remove the idea that this "first cause" will cause other things to occur, there is still the notion of something "uncaused".

So Tim Wood, I actually agree with you that causality is not fundamentally necessary in existence. Of course, I do not deny that causality also exists, as I see it as something that cannot be disproven. But even if you take issue with the notion of causality, it would seem you must agree with me that there is the potential of something that can exist without causality. And if that is the case, then you agree with my claim that an "uncaused" thing can exist. And if an "uncaused" thing can exist, then we can think about what would logically result from this.

And so point 4 remains unchallenged. If it is the case that there is no causality, no fundamental requirement that something exist prior to a current historical state, then there is no reason why a current state should exist in the way it does, besides the fact of its present existence. Are you in agreement so far, or are there issues you would like to address at this point?

To Tim's list I would also add

d. Things can exist without a prior cause — EricH

Hello EricH, thanks for contributing! Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But even if you take issue with the notion of causality, it would seem you must agree with me that there is the potential of something that can exist without causality.
— Philosophim
Um, no. Aristotle somewhere makes the point that with either-or is also neither-nor. Recognizing that cause-and-effect is my invention (so to speak), mighty useful and dependable, I still ought to remember it's mine and not the world's itself. — tim wood

To clarify what I meant, if you do not believe that cause and effect is real, then you believe there can exist things that are uncaused. The only options to us are that causality exists, or causality does not exist right? Its either true, or false unless you believe there is something in between. If there is something in between, what do you suppose it is? Or is it an assertion that we are ignorant to it, and can never figure it out.

If causality as a model fits the world, then causality is something within the world. You do not believe that causality as a model fits the world, which is fine. But if that is the case, then by necessity, that means that the world exists without causality, and thus we can examine what a world would necessarily be if causality does not fit the world. If this thinking is wrong, can you explain why you think it is?

Everything so many yards, feet, and inches, while at the same time nothing is. — tim wood

While this is poetic, I do not believe this conveys a logical breakdown. Everything that has length can be measured in yards, feet and inches. We do not have to use the man made measurements of yard, feet, and inches, but if we do, they are very real measurements that give us logical conclusions about reality that can give accurate predictions and results. Measurement is an invention of humanity, but its application to reality is concurrent with, and not contradicted by reality either. Thus it is within the world, and not merely an imaginary whim of humanity.

Otherwise are we to say that measuring in yards, feet, and inches is wrong, and does not accurately reflect reality? If so, then there are questions and consequences with this. If you do not believe that causality reflects reality, then there are of course questions, and at least one consequence that there must be reality that exists without causality. I look forward to hearing your take!

Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do? — Philosophim

Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause".

Now if you want to postulate that quantum physics is incomplete and there is some underlying "causality" that science has not yet uncovered , then go for it. But people much, much smarter than you & I have been unable to do so.

BTW - I neglected yet another option

e) The whole notion of "causality" is nonsensical. In other words, we are like dogs looking at a computer screen - we have no idea what's going on out there.

At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause". — EricH

Interesting. I would think the more correct claim is, "We cannot currently find an underlying cause, therefore, there may not be any." Which is perfectly fine.

At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven. — EricH

But not for my purposes here. The point that I put forth is that everything has a prior cause, or there are things that do not have a prior cause. I then examine the logic of what it would be like for something to not have a prior cause.

I believe we are talking past each other at this point Tim Wood. You seem to be addressing things that are irrelevant to the puzzle at hand. The first part of the puzzle is me stating, "Either everything has a prior cause, or there are things that do not have a prior cause," and assessing the logical conclusion of what would result if a thing did not have a prior cause.

My point was that if you do not believe there is causality, then you should be at least examining my logical claims of what it would be like for something to not have causality. The point I was making is that doing away with causality, does not negate the points I make when I state that is something that is uncaused. Do you agree or disagree with the logic that I have put forward about an uncaused thing?

I do not ask to convince you. I can tell you are not interested in such things. You also seem highly reluctant because I believe you think this is some theist trap to get you to agree there is a God. It is not. I want to see if I can poke a hole in my own argument. The joy of philosophy for me is not poking holes into other's arguments, but my own at this point.

So please if you will. You may carry on with whatever you believe. I do not care. But please try to address the points I am making and poke holes in them. The main point I am very interested in seeing a challenge to, is my claimed logical consequences of a thing that has no cause for its being besides the fact of its own existence. If you are not addressing that, you really aren't addressing the point of the argument.

The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held. — Philosophim

In fact, any event can be explained by an infinite variety of mundane causes, and an infinite variety of supernatural ones. And if your criteria is not mundane vs. supernatural but literally anything (i.e blue Ys vs any other colored Ys), you still get infinity on either side. Using this method, the probability is always 50%. Therefore, this method has zero predictive power, and discloses zero information about the world.

The real flaw is, this is not how probabilities are calculated. You don't just enumerate the possibilities and count them, you need to assign weights to them. Merely enumerating possibilities tells you exactly nothing.

In fact, any event can be explained by an infinite variety of mundane causes, and an infinite variety of supernatural ones. And if your criteria is not mundane vs. supernatural but literally anything (i.e blue Ys vs any other colored Ys), you still get infinity on either side. Using this method, the probability is always 50%. Therefore, this method has zero predictive power, and discloses zero information about the world.

The real flaw is, this is not how probabilities are calculated. You don't just enumerate the possibilities and count them, you need to assign weights to them. Merely enumerating possibilities tells you exactly nothing. — hypericin

Fantastic. You understand the flaw exactly. Well done! Because we are looking at the case of possibilities, and logically cannot assign any weight to one or another, the only thing we can do is enumerate possibilities, and come to the conclusion of infinity on either side.

The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held. — Philosophim

Thanks for finally revealing the missing piece of the puzzle. Your reasoning is exactly why I defined my hypothetical "First Cause", not as an empirical physical "being". but as meta-physical "BEING per se" (the power to be, to exist). In Physics, all causation is attributed to the mysterious force we call "Energy". But, like all causes, we only know Energy by its effects.

For example, astronomers have tracked a continuous chain of physical events (mostly star creation & destruction) all the way back to a so-called Singularity at the beginning of Time. But where did the Singularity come from? Nobody knows, but we could continue the Cause & Effect sequence (turtles all the way down) back into eternity (Multiverse theory) with no satisfactory end on sight.

Or we could do like those astronomers, and just end the causal train at the furthest point we can calculate (Planck time or Asymptote). And, for convenience, we could call that mythical time-before-time and space-before-space : "the First Cause" or "Ultimate Potential". That's not a thing, or an object, it's merely a Trait of Existence. You can call it "God", if you like, but like the Singularity, it's undefined. We know nothing of its make-up, only its effects : the world we live in. The odds-of-god in that sense are 100%. :smile:


What is energy made of? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Trait : attribute ; feature ; quality (from French "tract" -- to draw out, to create

Singularity : a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined

Ontological Cause : Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.

Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.