Could there be no first cause? That leads to an infinite regress of cause and effect, but that cannot logically exist. — Devans99
The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect. — Devans99
It must be the end of time. The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect. Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch.
So this version of the Prime Mover has no logical holes in it and it addresses the old chicken and egg problem. — Devans99
How do you know? — Banno
If so, then there must be a first cause. Yet what is being called a first cause in the argument isn't actually a first cause, because it was caused by an effect which was presumably itself caused by an effect, and so on. So, there must be a first cause, but there isn't. :chin: — S
"The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect.
— Devans99
Which suggests an infinite regress of cause and effect, if that's his answer when you zone in on this point each time. Yet he says that an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible — S
No it's not infinite. The circle of time is a finite circle. First cause (which is an arbitrary choice on a circle) always causes last effect. The circle of time is eternal - outside of time and finite. IE the same events repeat themselves endlessly.
So you can imagine if the circle was say 50 billion years in circumference that an event A might occur 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Then after another 50 billion years, event A occurs again. It is the exact same event A that occurs again; it's not an identical but different event, it's the same event. — Devans99
What's supposedly finite in that model, then? You say that it's not infinite, but you're describing an infinite loop. You yourself say that the same events repeat themselves endlessly, and that there's no beginning or end, which means that it must be infinite. There isn't a first cause or a last effect, except in name alone. — S
I don't see how the objections to an infinite linear regression wouldn't equally apply to an infinite loop. You say that if there is no first member in the sequence, then the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist. Well, there is no first member in the sequence under your model. You're just arbitrarily picking a member in an infinite circular sequence and calling it that, but the same can be done in infinite linear sequence. — S
Cause and effect is the axiom I'm using — Devans99
The 'current time pointer' loops around and resets itself at t=0. So infinity is never encountered; the pointer reaches the end of time and resets; not holding state beyond one rotation around the loop is a way to avoid infinity. — Devans99
With an infinite linear sequence there is always some member without a predecessor — Devans99
an infinite linear sequence has no starting member so the whole sequence is undefined. — Devans99
With a finite, eternal, circle of cause and effect there is a problem of where did the circling originally start. — Devans99
But this circle is eternal so beyond time so 'start' does not have a proper meaning. Thats not a great answer. I'm not sure on this point. Maybe God to the rescue? (Bit of a lazy option!). — Devans99
But it seems to me that time wouldn't really end, it would just transition over and over again infinitely. — S
What? It looks like you're running into contradiction again. If there's a member without a predecessor, then that must be a starting member. — S
But that should be a potential infinity rather than an actual infinity... maybe... it's sort of hard to talk about outside of time. — Devans99
If there is a member without a predecessor then that is contrary to the axiom of 'cause and effect' I'm using. All effects must have causes so all members have predecessors. — Devans99
An example of a infinite linear sequence:
..., x2, x3, x4, x5, ...
So x2 does not have a predecessor. Or if you add x1:
..., x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, ...
Now x1 does not have a predecessor. No matter how many predecessors you add, there is still a member without a predecessor. So all infinite linear sequences are missing a predecessor. So they run contrary to cause and effect - the infinite linear sequence is never fully defined; there is always a first member missing. So they run contrary to cause and effect - the infinite linear sequence is never fully defined; there is always a first member missing. — Devans99
The integers (negative and positive) comprise an infinite linear sequence. What is its first member? Which integer does not have a predecessor? — aletheist
No, that's not right. Any member that you single out will necessarily have a predecessor, even if you don't explicitly include it in the part of the sequence that you're focussing on. — S
Sorry the predecessors argument I was using is not right. What I should have said is if the sequence of cause and effect goes back infinitely, it cannot have a start, or first cause. — Devans99
Meaning the rest of the sequence cannot be caused / exist. — Devans99
I don't see how that follows, and I don't recall seeing an argument for that. Thus far, I've only assumed it for argument's sake. — S
With an infinite regress there is no first cause. If you remove the first cause from any chain of cause and effect, then the rest of the chain ceases to exist. — Devans99
So I think the axiom 'all effects have causes' is violated by an infinite regress - individually each effect has a cause but when the sequence is considered as a whole, there must always be a missing cause (because there is no start). — Devans99
The argument is no different to the original prime mover which also assumes an infinite regress is impossible. — Devans99
No, there would be no missing cause. We've essentially already been over this and you conceded. There can be no missing cause in an infinite chain of cause and effect. That's simply not possible, else it wouldn't be an infinite chain of cause and effect. — S
No I have not conceded. — Devans99
The sequence as a whole has no start so none of it can exist. — Devans99
Maybe this paradox will help you see the problem with infinity/eternity:
- Say you meet an Eternal being
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on? — Devans99
If I remove A... — Devans99
It’s impossible to count to infinity, so the being cannot be on that (no matter how many times you add one, you never reach infinity). — Devans99
If the being is on a finite number, then he is not eternal; he started counting a finite time ago. — Devans99
So it's because eternity has no start - it's impossible to start counting, start being, start existing. — Devans99
If you look at the paradox again - it assumes 3 things and reaches a contradiction - eternity, being and counting. Being and counting are possible so it must be eternity that is not possible. — Devans99
1. It makes no sense to talk about removing a cause. That's not actually possible. — S
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect with a gap in it, so as soon as begin to suggest a gap in the chain, you're no longer talking about an infinite chain. And as soon as you begin to talk about something other than an infinite chain, you're committing a fallacy of irrelevance. — S
That does not follow at all. Again, your fundamental assumption is that everything is an effect--i.e., everything has a beginning--which is precisely what arguments for a First Mover deny. — aletheist
Please pay attention. Arguments for a First Mover consistently affirm that every effect has a cause. What they deny is that everything is an effect; specifically, the First Mover is not an effect and requires no cause. — aletheist
But we need to consider a chain without a first cause, so removing a cause is a way to do this. — Devans99
All real chains of cause and effect have a starting cause. — Devans99
It is only an infinite chain of cause and effect that does not have a starting cause. — Devans99
Because there is no first cause, none of the other members in the chain can exist — Devans99
A->B->C->D->E.
If A does not exist, then B, C, D, E do not exist. — Devans99
That is the situation for an infinite regress — Devans99
the first member does not exist so none of the members exist. — Devans99
I'm not talking about a gap. I'm talking about the absence of the first member. — Devans99
Maybe an example with less moving parts: Imagine an eternal being; he would have no birth so could never exist. — Devans99
IE eternal has no start - no moment of birth — Devans99
so the rest of the life cannot exist. — Devans99
Very similar to my example of removing A from the start of a sequence. — Devans99
Please think this through. An infinite chain of cause and effect cannot be broken, otherwise it wouldn't be an infinite chain of cause and effect — S
What nonsense. The missing premise from the above argument would be that all beings must be born, but no one is under any obligation to accept that premise. Obviously many believers would outright reject that premise. It would be kind of silly to argue that God must have been born. — S
I am not suggesting breaking the chain. — Devans99
It is just a fundamental characteristic of a chain that it has a start. — Devans99
I suggesting imagining a chain without a start... clearly such a chain cannot exist. — Devans99
You are wrong again. All my argument asserts is that beings must have a temporal start of some form (I called it birth just to make it familiar). — Devans99
Can you imagine a being without a temporal start? — Devans99
That is just impossible. Such a being would have an unexplainable gap in its personal history - its origin and an origin is essential to being. — Devans99
I may have to offline this discussion as it appears we are going around in circles. — Devans99
Happy XMAS though. — Devans99
So how could he exist if he was not born? An unborn being would not exist. — Devans99
My argument applies cause and effect consistently throughout. — Devans99
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.