Zeno's arguments have some merit; else we would not still reference them. — Devans99

I wonder if that distraction technique was deliberate or unconscious. :chin:

Do you, or do you not, believe that a flying arrow is motionless?

Of course not, but Zeno's arguments highlight the nonsensical nature of the continuum - that is the purpose of the arguments - not to prove an arrow is motionless.

I say at the start of the OP that I'm assuming the first cause is God. — Devans99

Agreed, but saying so does not make it logical. You begin your speculations with an assumption. Very fitting. :wink:

It's not a big assumption. We have a timeless, powerful, intelligent first cause. Calling it God is more of a definition than an assumption IMO.

Of course not, but Zeno's arguments highlight the nonsensical nature of the continuum - that is the purpose of the arguments - not to prove an arrow is motionless. — Devans99

If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?

Looks like the same kind of logic to me.

If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?

Looks like the same kind of logic to me — S

I believe Zeno's paradoxes go away if you assume spacetime is discrete. So Zeno's paradoxes are actually proof via contradiction that spacetime is discrete. So they stand as valid logic.

Seriously, can you present a logical argument for a universe without a first cause?

Seriously, can you present a logical argument for a universe without a first cause? — Devans99

Yes.

If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause.

Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

Your argument for the necessity of a first cause uses the same logic.

It doesn't work in the case of Homer and the path, so it doesn't work in the case of the universe and the supposed necessity of a first cause.

If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause. — S

What do you have to back up this bald assertion?

Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on. — S

So homer cannot walk to the end of the path so by your logic the universe has a first cause?

Your argument for the necessity of a first cause uses the same logic — S

No it does not. It's a topological argument. First cause is topologically connected (casually connected) to every other cause. Take away the first cause and everything else ceases to exist. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals.

We have a timeless, powerful, intelligent first cause — Devans99

Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario. You're speculating, then cherry-picking the bits of logically-derived stuff (and maybe some illogical stuff too?) that should accompany it. There's nothing wrong with speculation, or with logic for that matter, but if you start with an illogical and unjustified speculation, you shouldn't be surprised if your cogitations result in something ... inconsistent.

Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario — Pattern-chaser

If you look back at:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

You will see that arguments B, C and E do not use cause and effect as an axiom.

And cause and effect applies. Quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy. They don't create matter.

What do you have to back up this bald assertion? — Devans99

Logic.

So homer cannot walk to the end of the path so by your logic the universe has a first cause? — Devans99

No, lol. Homer can walk to the end of the path, so the universe can be without a first cause. The logic against either conclusion fails.

No it does not. It's a topological argument. First cause is topologically connected (casually connected) to every other cause. Take away the first cause and everything else ceases to exist. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals. — Devans99

I've seen you with my own eyes break it down in a similar way. You reason backwards along the same lines. If you were more logical, then you would maintain that Homer can never reach the end of the path, because to reach the end of the path, he must get halfway, and to get halfway, he must get half of halfway, and so on. That's like you reasoning that for the universe to have existed the time that it has done, then it must have existed half of that time, and half of that time, and half of that, and so on. Except that you then just randomly assert without reasonable justification that there must have been a first cause, which you've also called a start.

The difference is that the logic in the case of Homer goes forwards, whereas yours goes backwards.

The point is that your Homer example demonstrates that space is discrete. So it is a valid argument that leads to the valid conclusion: that space is discrete (not that Homer can't walk the path).

That's like you reasoning that for the universe to have existed the time that it has done, then it must have existed half of that time, and half of that time, and half of that, and so on. Except that you then just randomly assert without reasonable justification that there must have been a first cause. — S

I never reason like this. Your example has a completely different structure to my argument.

You will see that arguments B, C and E do not use cause and effect as an axiom. — Devans99

And yet you refer to a "first cause"? :chin:

I think the start if time requires a first cause; I don't see time starting by itself.

The point is that your Homer example demonstrates that space is discrete. So it is a valid argument that leads to the valid conclusion: that space is discrete (not that Homer can't walk the path). — Devans99

Stop changing the subject to a different argument resembling Zeno's argument, but with a different conclusion.

Zeno's argument concludes that it is impossible for Homer to get to the end of the path.

I never reason like this. Your example has a completely different structure to my argument. — Devans99

You're either lying or deceiving yourself because you can't handle the truth.

You really want the logic to work in the special case of God, even though it doesn't work elsewhere. It's illogical to argue that the universe must have had a start on the basis of that reasoning, yet to reject that reasoning in other contexts. You haven't reasonably demonstrated the necessity of a start. Your reasoning against an infinite regress is just of the sort that Homer has to get halfway, and half of halfway, and so on, only backwards instead of forwards, and then you randomly assert a first cause, which would be a bit like randomly asserting a necessary final destination which simply must be reached.

I think the start [o]f time requires a first cause... — Devans99

...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not.

You really want the logic to work in the special case of God, even though it doesn't work elsewhere — S

Please tell me where cause and effect does not hold?

Your reasoning against an infinite regress is just of the sort that Homer has to get halfway, and half of halfway, and so on, and then you randomly assert a first cause, which would be like randomly asserting a final destination. — S

My reasoning against an infinite regress is that it has no starting cause, so that the 2nd cause cannot be defined (because it is determined by the first cause), nor the 3rd, and so on. That is a topological argument that the start is causally connected to the rest of the infinite regress. It does not rely on infinitesimals.

Please tell me where cause and effect does not hold? — Devans99

It seemingly does hold, and that's the problem you have to contend with. You have proven only capable of reasoning up to a certain point before resorting to your dogma of a first cause.

My reasoning against an infinite regress is that it has no starting cause, so that the 2nd cause cannot be defined (because it is determined by the first cause), nor the 3rd, and so on. That is a topological argument that the start is causally connected to the rest of the infinite regress. It does not rely on infinitesimals. — Devans99

The logical resemblance is crystal clear. It's just a backwards chain and a forwards chain. You go into detail in a similar way that Zeno's paradoxes do, with a similar logic, and then at an arbitrary point, you randomly assert your dogma of a first cause, like the mirror imagine conceivable dogma of a final destination.

God has dimension in his own terms and definition. Although us human beings cannot live with the idea of something that cannot be seen through our limited eyesight and knowledge doesn't exist thus we are trying to shape or picture him the way want and unfortunately we are not and will not be successful in it.

Not long time ago we were thinking of only our solar system because that is what we could see but guessing on all other things that recently were discovered and yet our guess is multiplied by the dimension of what we have found. The more we found the more we will multiply our guess and to simply put it we are nearing the thought of infinity.

The foundation, or "proof" as you call it, of God's existence was not determined by a Catholic propagandist from the 1200's. Today's grade-school children have greater discernment and better sense than this man. To have been venerated by the Catholic church, he would have had to promote that the Pope was the living manifestation of God on Earth and whatever other fundamentalist nonsense was dictated by his indoctrination into theological "philosophy". He would have viewed free thinkers as heathens and anything opposing the Cathollic concept of God as heresy.

But let's address his insane ramblings:

1. The "argument from motion" is a paradox. It is full of sentiment, assumption and speculation. Just as easily as we can speculate that there must be a "first mover" and assign a human personality to it, we can also speculate that "the singularity" was not the first event to have ever occurred in all of reality. Also, if a "first mover" was to exist as was assumed in the "proof", the implication is that the "first mover" began all things and is outside all time and space, eternal. If not time and space, then something must extend infinitely in all directions through all dimensions or some lack thereof, and this is assumed to be the "first mover". Either without time and space, or if time and space were infinite, both of which are impossible, it would be irrational to think that any instance could occur. By this rationale, we don't exist, and neither does the "first mover".

2. First Cause. He argues against himself again here, determining that the "first mover" can't have existed eternally because nothing can exist prior to itself, and nothing exists which hasn't been initiated by something else. To paraphrase this nonsense, he says "I'm confused, therefore God". It's ridiculous to use examples from observable reality to support claims of imaginary things that not only have no foundation in observable reality but effectively contradict it.

3. Necessary Being. Here he hits the nail on the head by iterating what I just pointed out in my previous rant: that this is all absurd. Again, a paradox. "I'm confused, therefore God".

4. Degree. To assume any intrinsic valuation is preposterous. He is now preaching based on abstractions such as nobility and truth that a God, who if human would be a raging sociopath, is responsible for all that is good and decent in humans but not responsible for anything that is corrupt or evil.

5. He presumes, again based on religious belief and in the absence of science, that anything that doesn't appear to be self-aware by human standards is unintelligent and aimless, which was fine in the 1200's, when everyone was a blithering moron, but none of this stuff holds true in modern times.

This argument, and it's no argument at all, is just another confused rant from a place of scientific ignorance and intellectual deficiency. If its writer isn't intellectually deficient, then he's attempting to mislead his reader and pander to authorities his life depends on. The only thing infinite here is the writer's self-contradiction.

...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not. — Pattern-chaser

Time had a start. Things just don't start themselves (just like it is impossible to create one's self).

It seemingly does hold, and that's the problem you have to contend with. — S

If cause and effect holds then there must be a timeless first cause. You are almost agreeing with me.

The logical resemblance is crystal clear. It's just a backwards chain and a forwards chain. You go into detail in a similar way that Zeno's paradoxes do, with a similar logic, and then at an arbitrary point, you randomly assert your dogma of a first cause, like the parallel conceivable dogma of a final destination. — S

Honestly you are talking about the Summa Theologica, one of the greatest works of philosophy, and calling it dogma.

Time had a start. — Devans99

I have been trying to be more constructive than this, to illustrate my point, but now I am reduced to: Prove it!

Time had a start. Things just don't start themselves (just like it is impossible to create one's self). — Devans99

Prove that. Tell me why things cannot start by themselves. How do you know that? What evidence allows you to draw that conclusion?

Time has a start proof is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Assertion is not proof.

Tell me why things cannot start by themselves.

Please stop calling things proof, it's annoying. Seriously, by these standards I could find proof on the internet that toasters are supreme beings and chickens are aliens.

Well it was posted ages ago and no-one has come up with a valid counter argument yet.

Please tell me how something can start by itself?

I just explained to you how the "proof" you presented argues against itself so no one has to. It's not hard, you just have to read it. It's self-contradictory, confused nonsense. If you place any stock in your argument, then you have to admit that you have no idea what is valid because only the "first mover" knows, another contradiction.

If cause and effect holds then there must be a timeless first cause. — Devans99

Very funny.

Honestly you are talking about the Summa Theologica, one of the greatest works of philosophy, and calling it dogma. — Devans99

Dogma in a fancy suit is still dogma. Honestly, would you expect any less from the Diogenes of The Philosophy Forum? I am not exactly of the sort to hold back criticism out of a sense of awe and respect. Brutal honesty is the order of the day.