Could there be no first cause? That leads to an infinite regress of cause and effect, but that cannot logically exist. — Devans99

So 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:

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. :chin:

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

All this is really doing is saying that there's no first cause after all.

How do you know? — Banno

Cause and effect is the axiom I'm using (or more 'specifically all effects have causes' and 'all causes are effects'. It might be wrong, but I think its a pretty good axiom:

Cause and effect does appear to hold for everyday experience.

For non-everyday experience, it may hold as well. Two examples from the quantum world:

- Quantum fluctuations are caused by a field and the field is caused by space (empty space is something - it has vacuum energy). Space was caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang caused by the Big Crunch.

- Radioactive decay. Caused by the jiggling of particles in the nucleus under the influence of the strong and electromagnetic forces.

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

On a circle of cause and effect you do not need a first cause. All causes are also effects. You can choose a first cause but its arbitrary. I chose the Big Bang/Big Crunch as first cause because of convention.

"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.

A simplified version of my argument:

P1 The universe is everything
P2 Cause and effect apply
C1 The universe was caused by the universe (IE time is circular)

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 real beginning or end, which means that it must be infinite. There isn't a first cause or a last effect, except in name alone.

I don't see how the objections to an infinite linear regression wouldn't equally apply to an infinite loop. You say, or so the argument goes, 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 the first, but the same can be done in infinite linear sequence.

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

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.

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

With an infinite linear sequence there is always some member without a predecessor - an infinite linear sequence has no starting member so the whole sequence is undefined. With a finite circle, all members at least have a predecessor.

With a finite, eternal, circle of cause and effect there is a problem of where did the circling originally start. 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!).

Cause and effect is the axiom I'm using — Devans99

So it's an assumption.

Let's release one photon at a time through a double slit. Each will go through either the left, or the right, slit.

There is no way of knowing which slit will the seventh photon go through.

Hence there is little or no discussion of what causes it to go through one, and not the other.

perhaps here is something that is uncaused. The point is, the assumption of cause can sometimes be ignored.

Why not, then, simply do this in the case of the first cause?

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

But it seems to me that time wouldn't really end, it would just transition over and over again infinitely.

With an infinite linear sequence there is always some member without a predecessor — Devans99

No, I don't think that that's right. On the contrary, a linear sequence which is infinite regressively cannot have any member without a predecessor, otherwise it wouldn't be infinite regressively.

an infinite linear sequence has no starting member so the whole sequence is undefined. — Devans99

What? It looks like you're running into contradiction again. If there's a member without a predecessor, as you say there must be, then that member must be a starting member.

With a finite, eternal, circle of cause and effect there is a problem of where did the circling originally start. — Devans99

It wouldn't be finite regressively, as far as I can tell, so that wouldn't be a problem. You've already accepted that there wouldn't be a start.

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

It wouldn't have a start, otherwise it wouldn't be eternal in the sense you seem to mean. That which has always been and always will be is eternal, so there can be no start. That which is beyond time can have no start.

But it seems to me that time wouldn't really end, it would just transition over and over again infinitely. — 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.

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

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.

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.

The integers (negative and positive) comprise an infinite linear sequence. What is its first member? Which integer does not have a predecessor?

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

I've given it some thought, and it seems like you're talking about a complete set - like, say, the set of all events - which contains a finite number of members, but a sequence which loops infinitely. Agree or disagree?

Anyway, it still seems to me that your argument suffers from some of the problems that I've raised. It still leads to an infinite regressive loop of cause and effect, with no first member in the sequence, which, by your own argument, means that the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist.

I also think that it's simply mistaken, in the first place, to assume that there's a "before time", let alone that the end of time "must" have come before the start of it, which doesn't follow.

And your talk of first and last, and of a beginning and an end, is misleading, because these concepts don't actually apply under your model, nor can they.

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

I know that, and I agree, but my point was that you've created a contradiction, and it's not clear to me whether that was an error on your part or an attempt to reduce my position to absurdity, although if it was the latter it hasn't worked.

Now, you said that (P1) with an infinite linear sequence, there is always a member without a predecessor (which is false).

Then you said that (P2) an infinite linear sequence has no starting member (which is true).

But if, (P1) with an infinite linear sequence, there is always a member without a predecessor, then it follows that (C1) there is always a starting member in that sequence, because (P3) a member without a predecessor must be a starting member.

But (C1) contradicts (P2).

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

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. They're not missing from the sequence itself, it's just that they'll be out of shot from certain camera angles. If you disagree, then I challenge you to find me an exception here. Find me a number in that sequence where you don't think that there's a predecessor, and I guarantee you, I can tell you what that predecessor is.

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. Meaning the rest of the sequence cannot be caused / exist.

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

Okay.

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.

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. 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).

The argument is no different to the original prime mover which also assumes an infinite regress is impossible.

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

There wouldn't - and couldn't - be any "removing" of a first cause from an infinite regress, because there wouldn't - and couldn't - be a first cause in an infinite regress to begin with. So that line of argument doesn't work.

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

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.

So, I'm still waiting for a valid argument from you.

The argument is no different to the original prime mover which also assumes an infinite regress is impossible. — Devans99

Okay, but I'm calling that assumption into question.

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. The sequence as a whole has no start so none of it can exist. 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?

No I have not conceded. — Devans99

Okay, well let's go back over it until you do, then. :grin:

The sequence as a whole has no start so none of it can exist. — Devans99

That's the claim I'm challenging. I'm asking you how you get from A to B.

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

Nope, I'm not seeing a problem that's relevant. How am I supposed to know? He could be on any number. Where's the paradox? And how does it get you from A to B in the claim that I'm challenging?

A sequence of cause and effect:

A->B->C
(A causes B causes C)

If I remove A, then B and C does not happen. Can't you see an infinite sequence has no start so none of it can exist.

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). If the being is on a finite number, then he is not eternal; he started counting a finite time ago.

So it's because eternity has no start - it's impossible to start counting, start being, start existing.

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.

If I remove A... — Devans99

1. It makes no sense to talk about removing a cause. That's not actually possible.

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.

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

So what? I didn't say that he is, or even could be, on or reach or count to infinity.

If the being is on a finite number, then he is not eternal; he started counting a finite time ago. — Devans99

That doesn't appear to follow. You're just giving yourself more work instead of answering my question. Now you have two apparent non sequiturs to explain.

So it's because eternity has no start - it's impossible to start counting, start being, start existing. — Devans99

I never suggested otherwise. I accept the no start thing. In the thought experiment, God has always been counting, has always been, has always existed. This doesn't pose any problem as far as I can tell.

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

How so? I see no contradiction there.

1. It makes no sense to talk about removing a cause. That's not actually possible. — S

But we need to consider a chain without a first cause, so removing a cause is a way to do this. All real chains of cause and effect have a starting cause. It is only an infinite chain of cause and effect that does not have a starting cause. Because there is no first cause, none of the other members in the chain can exist:

A->B->C->D->E.

If A does not exist, then B, C, D, E do not exist. That is the situation for an infinite regress - the first member does not exist so none of the members exist.

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

I'm not talking about a gap. I'm talking about the absence of the first member.


Maybe an example with less moving parts: Imagine an eternal being; he would have no birth so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not.

IE eternal has no start - no moment of birth - so the rest of the life cannot exist. Very similar to my example of removing A from the start of a sequence.

Imagine an eternal being; he would have no birth so could never exist. — Devans99

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.

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

So how could he exist if he was not born? An unborn being would not exist.

Arguments for First Mover are inconsistent: They say effects do not have a cause (God) - in which case it is wrong to claim that you can trace a chain of cause effect back to God (because some effects do not have causes).

My argument at least applies its axioms consistently.

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.

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

I agree: the existing prime mover arguments apply cause and effect in an inconsistent manner; cause and effect are applied for everything accept God.

My argument applies cause and effect consistently throughout.

But we need to consider a chain without a first cause, so removing a cause is a way to do this. — Devans99

No, it would do the opposite, if it were even possible, which it isn't. 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. Do you even know what an infinite chain of cause and effect is? Have you forgotten?

All real chains of cause and effect have a starting cause. — Devans99

Begging the question.

It is only an infinite chain of cause and effect that does not have a starting cause. — Devans99

I accept that an infinite chain of cause and effect has no starting cause.

Because there is no first cause, none of the other members in the chain can exist — Devans99

Please stop repeating that non sequitur. You need to fill in the logical gap.

A->B->C->D->E.

If A does not exist, then B, C, D, E do not exist. — Devans99

Not possible in an infinite chain. Please stop repeating your arguments and start addressing my refutations. If A does not exist, then it must never have existed - it must never have been part of the chain to begin with. And in that case, it isn't a problem. Alternatively, you end up in contradiction or a fallacy of irrelevance. Take your pick, it's a lose-lose scenario.

That is the situation for an infinite regress — Devans99

No it is not.

the first member does not exist so none of the members exist. — Devans99

Doesn't follow.

I'm not talking about a gap. I'm talking about the absence of the first member. — Devans99

You were talking about removing a member from a chain, and that would obviously create a gap.

The absence of a first member goes without saying. It's absent by default in the case of an infinite chain. If you have something to say about that, please get on with it.

Maybe an example with less moving parts: Imagine an eternal being; he would have no birth so could never exist. — Devans99

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.

IE eternal has no start - no moment of birth — Devans99

This premise is true...

so the rest of the life cannot exist. — Devans99

...but you have not demonstrated that the above conclusion follows from it.

How much do you know about logic - more specifically, validity? Please look into it if need be, and if/when you're ready, return with a valid argument.

Very similar to my example of removing A from the start of a sequence. — Devans99

And now you've gone back to your talk about removing, instead of talk about an absence. The former is not possible.

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

I am not suggesting breaking the chain. It is just a fundamental characteristic of a chain that it has a start. All chains have starts. I suggesting imagining a chain without a start... clearly such a chain cannot exist.

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

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). Can you imagine a being without a temporal start? 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.


I may have to offline this discussion as it appears we are going around in circles. Happy XMAS though.

I am not suggesting breaking the chain. — Devans99

Yes you are, even if you don't mean to. If you don't see that, then please review our discussion and give it some more thought.

It is just a fundamental characteristic of a chain that it has a start. — Devans99

1. That is begging the question - a fallacy.

2. An infinite chain doesn't have a start.

I suggesting imagining a chain without a start... clearly such a chain cannot exist. — Devans99

I suggest you begin by presenting a logically valid argument which ends with that conclusion, instead of a fallacious argument from incredulity such as the above.

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

Born, temporal start - doesn't matter. That isn't a premise that I need to accept, and that is, once again, begging the question. Do you understand what that means? It is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

Can you imagine a being without a temporal start? — Devans99

An eternal being wouldn't have a temporal start. I don't need to imagine one, but you would need to show that it's not logically possible. That is, you would need to do so if it actually bears any relevance to our discussion, but it doesn't. We don't need to be talking about beings at all, let alone a being without a temporal start. This is just a red herring.

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

It's only impossible in combination with premises such as those, but I could simply reject those two premises. Besides, more importantly, all this talk of an eternal being is just one big red herring. Please return to the topic that we were discussing, which was about an infinite chain of cause and effect.

I may have to offline this discussion as it appears we are going around in circles. — Devans99

But that's your fault. I'm clearly not the one sending the discussion round in circles. I'm refuting your arguments, and you're repeating the same arguments, making the same mistakes, with the added insult of leaving important parts of my replies unaddressed.

Happy XMAS though. — Devans99

Bah humbug.

My argument applies cause and effect consistently throughout. — Devans99

Only by adopting the additional axiom--an assumption, not an argument--that everything is an effect.

So how could he exist if he was not born? An unborn being would not exist. — Devans99

Are you seriously making that argument? It's an eternal being.

That's like asking how an immortal can still be alive, and claiming that he would be dead by now.

There is nothing inherently illogical in those concepts. The rather obvious weakness in your argument that an eternal being couldn't possibly exist is that it is conditional on the acceptance of certain premises which do not need to be accepted, and very likely would not be accepted by those who believe in an eternal being, who are, at least in part, your target audience.

I don't believe in an eternal being, or analogously an immortal, but your argument against one is poor, as is your similar argument against an infinite regress, which you still don't seem to realise is actually an argument against your own position, hence even if you "succeed", you fail.

My argument applies cause and effect consistently throughout. — Devans99

But you deny the logical consequence of an infinite regress. It's like you can't quite make up your mind between a first cause and an infinite regress, so you end up either switching between the two whenever it's convenient, trying to have your cake and eat it, or denying both. None of the approaches I've just described are reasonable. You need to go back to the drawing board.