I really don't get you, the argument is about a lack of first cause - nowhere is it assumed that there is a first cause.

I really don't get you, the argument is about a lack of first cause - nowhere is it assumed that there is a first cause. — Devans99

A lack of a first cause is an infinite regress. You haven't reasonably reached a first cause. You just assert it. You assert that it's necessary without showing that it is. We're going around in circles again, and you aren't properly dealing with criticism again, and then you'll do the feigned amnesia act and say that I never even provided any criticism.

A lack of first cause means a lack of 2nd cause, a lack of 3rd cause etc...

I appreciate good ideas--having a favorite philosopher is pointless.

This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your original argument has been countered numerous times, your current posts aren't in support of countering those counter-arguments and you are starting to support your non-supportive current counter-arguments with yourself in another thread. Seriously, this is ridiculous. — Christoffer

Inception-level cognitive bias! That's a good way of putting it.

Have you met creativesoul, by the way?

A lack of first cause means a lack of 2nd cause, a lack of 3rd cause etc... — Devans99

There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain.

Stop being an illogical theistic nutjob. If you don't think the regress is infinite, keep going back and see where the principle of cause and effect logically takes you. Do it step by step. You would just keep going back infinitely if you never died.

And stop lying or trolling or whatever it is you're doing, because I know I have made this criticism multiple times before.

You are disregarding both science and logic to get to your precious first cause. Logic, going by the principle of cause and effect, leads to an infinite regress. And science leads to, "I don't know". It is your fanatical faith which leads you to a first cause, so that you can be a weakling clinging to the notion of God. You are a weakling if you need that in the first place.

If you weigh the evidence, the fors and the againsts, you will probably arrive at a probability, and thence confer with your conscience objectively about this.

Imagine you're in a causality feedback loop universe. Causality is only necessary for the guy in the loop, not for the loop to exist. And your chances of living after death are 100%!

There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain. — S

No my (and Aquinas's) reasoning points out that an infinite chain of causes has no start and because of this, none of it can exist. It does not matter whether we can trace back through each member of the infinite regress; we know it has no start and nothing in the regress is defined without a start (does the black go in if you don't hit the white first? No - a regress does not exist without a first member).

I've proved this for you with the pool example. I don't understand why you cannot get this point... it is so simple. If you need more examples of why things can't exist 'forever' in time, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

Imagine you're in a causality feedback loop universe. Causality is only necessary for the guy in the loop, not for the loop to exist. And your chances of living after death are 100%! — Vince

Circular time would be a causality feedback loop I think. It's not so far fetched - the only place in spacetime you can get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch - so the crunch causes the bang - time circles around at that point and everything happens again (all of our lives play out again identically).

I think circular time is the Occam's Razor design for life after death - it is the simplest solution I can think of. It also gives a nice, simple, self-sustaining model of the universe.

Sorry, I should have said reality instead of universe. For now, recent observations rule out the probabilty of a Big Crunch because it doesn't appear that there's enough density to fight back the expansion. I know, bummer...
And what would happen after the crunch? A Big Bounce? Time reversing? They all imply boundaries, I'm only talking about a smooth causal reality loop.

I believe that without doing some serious math, we just can't answer the big questions. Mostly because we can't have a good perspective on reality, as we are not inside reality like a foreign body, we are part of it.

So, I'm afraid all we have left is hope.

No my (and Aquinas's) reasoning points out that an infinite chain of causes has no start and because of this, none of it can exist. — Devans99

You don't need to point out what's obvious and goes without saying, and the conclusion doesn't follow.

It does not matter whether we can trace back through each member of the infinite regress; we know it has no start and nothing in the regress is defined without a start (does the black go in if you don't hit the white first? No - a regress does not exist without a first member). — Devans99

You haven't shown that nothing in an infinite regress would be defined, because you rely on faulty logic to do so. Everything in an infinite regress is defined. It doesn't need a start for that, and it can't have one anyway, otherwise it wouldn't even be an infinite regress. You would have to shut up about a start that isn't there, and demonstrate that something in the chain is undefined. But you've proven incapable of doing so. You just reassert the completely unfounded assertion that there needs to be a first cause, or a start, when there doesn't.

You aren't genuinely interested in the faults in your argument, you just want to push the argument over and over again, even though you're not convincing anyone at all, and even though this bad logic from hundreds of years ago won't magically work the more you repeat it.

Sorry, I should have said reality instead of universe. For now, recent observations rule out the probabilty of a Big Crunch because it doesn't appear that there's enough density to fight back the expansion. I know, bummer... — Vince

I don't think we need to be completely negative - it is space itself that is expanding and the rate of expansion has changed in the past (eg the end of inflation) - it could change again. So we are currently in an expanding phase; the contraction phase will start in X billion years. Also:

- If energy is conserved then the energy of the Big Bang must of come from somewhere - the only possible place is the Big Crunch.

- The state of the universe is identical at the Big Bang and Big Crunch so it is the natural place for time to loop around.

And what would happen after the crunch? A Big Bounce? Time reversing? They all imply boundaries, I'm only talkling about a smooth causal reality loop. — Vince

If you imagine the whole universe in 4d space time as a torus. It would be very narrow at one point where the Big Bang / Big Crunch happen. Very wide at the opposite point of maximum expansion. Imagine a spotlight moving around the torus - wherever it lights up part of the torus - that represents 'now' - this is naturally called the moving spotlight theory of time.

I believe that without doing some serious math, we just can't answer the big questions. — Vince

The maths is beyond me. Something maybe possible though. See for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

Aquinas is regarded as one of the most intelligent men ever. You are saying he is wrong. You are wrong.

Aquinas is regarded as one of the most intelligent men ever. You are saying he is wrong. You are wrong. — Devans99

That's a really dumb thing to say. Intelligent people can be wrong, and Aquinas is one example of that.

I'm still not sure whether you're a troll or just stupid.

No-one has pointed out Aquinas's error in 800 years. You certainly have not.

Did you read the link I gave you? For example, if a particle has no temporal start, how can it have innate attributes like mass, charge? There is no time at which those innate attributes could have been acquired.

So to be anything other than void and null requires a start.

No-one has pointed out Aquinas's error in 800 years. You certainly have not. — Devans99

Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No.

Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No. — S

I think it would be documented on the web somewhere if there was such an obvious hole in the prime mover argument... really you are clutching at straws. You are wrong on this one and just won't admit it is one possibility. The other is you are just too dumb to comprehend the dynamics of the situation.

Christoffer
483

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa


I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. :razz: — Christoffer

As I've mentioned, my "linguistic skills" have gotten my opinions published in places where it was very difficult to be published. People like you post here...where the only barrier is the ability to hit the POST button.

I am not lacking in linguistic skills. Your problem is that YOU want to define "good linguistic skills"...so that you can classify mine as deficient.

I've already had successes in the "linguistics skills" area you probably will never have. So take your self-serving "definitions" and shove 'em. :wink:

We can debate here for years and "behind closed doors" politicians have long known about the existence of souls on the basis of hidden scientific research that has been done for several decades.

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
Think of a finite regress like a pool table:

{ 'cue hits white', 'white hits black', 'black goes in hole' }

Would the black go in the hole if the cue did not hit the white?

No. So if the start element is missing, there is no regress. So there can be no infinite regresses. — Devans99

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS.

You have no problem at all with something that ALWAYS WAS...so long as it can lead to a god.

The "infinite regression" argument is a ruse.

The question for me...and I suspect for some of the others, is whether you truly do not see the flaws or if you do see them but are being stone-headed about it.

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS. — Frank Apisa

ALWAYS WAS is only possible via TIMELESSNESS - once you accept that infinite regresses are impossible, thats the only way it can be logically. I am not claiming that the first cause is God, just claiming that there is a first cause.

I am afraid I do not see the flaws in my argument... please enlighten me.

Below is a brief probability analysis of the chances of life after death — Devans99

I think the whole idea of life after death is incoherent. Death is the end of your life, so there can't be life after death. There's no beyond the end. Maybe you mean you can survive the death of your body? You'd first have to convince us all that there is a you above and beyond the body, aka a soul.

I think the whole idea of life after death is incoherent. Death is the end of your life, so there can't be life after death. There's no beyond the end. Maybe you mean you can survive the death of your body? You'd first have to convince us all that there is a you above and beyond the body, aka the soul. — Purple Pond

The angle I am coming from is eternalism - there is a possibility that the past and maybe also future are 'real' in someway. So think Einstein's 4D space time.

Then think of the world - if you walk far enough in one direction - you end up back where you started - so thats an example of a circular spacial dimension. What I am talking is a circular time dimension.

So you are born, you die, time comes around again (after billions of years) and then you are born again, you die, etc... So death is indeed the end of your life, its just your life is lived over and over again.

I don't believe in the soul personally.

Devans99
1.5k

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS. — Frank Apisa


ALWAYS WAS is only possible via TIMELESSNESS - once you accept that infinite regresses are impossible, thats the only way it can be logically. I am not claiming that the first cause is God, just claiming that there is a first cause.

I am afraid I do not see the flaws in my argument... please enlighten me. — Devans99

You have been enlightened. But you refuse the light.

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong.

The "light" is not that you are wrong...but that you MAY be wrong.

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating."

Devans99
1.5k

I don't believe in the soul personally. — Devans99

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY?

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating." — Frank Apisa

Which of my axioms is 'invented'?

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong. — Frank Apisa

Is there any philosophical question to which your answer is not 'I don't know'?

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa

I don't make blind guesses; I deduce, induce, abduce and estimate. I think you will find that consciously or subconsciously you use the same methods. There is substantial evidence (MRI scans etc...) that the mind is wholly part of the brain. So a soul is very unlikely. Induction.

So think Einstein's 4D space time. — Devans99

You already lost me here. I don't have a firm grasp on Einstein's theory of 4D space. I pretty sure it was 3D space and one dimension of time though.

What I am talking is a circular time dimension. — Devans99

I don't really understand what a circular time dimension is. But then again, I never took a physics class.

So you are born, you die, time comes around again (after billions of years) and then you are born again, you die, etc... So death is indeed the end of your life, its just your life is lived over and over again. — Devans99

But that wouldn't be living after you die. It's just you reliving your life. (If that's even possible).

Devans99
1.5k

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating." — Frank Apisa


Which of my axioms is 'invented'? — Devans99

All of 'em.

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong. — Frank Apisa


Is there any philosophical question to which your answer is not 'I don't know'? — Devans

Very few.

You ought to give it a try.

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa


I don't make blind guesses; I deduce, induce, abduce and estimate. — Devans

You make blind guesses...and pretend they are those things.

You will be a better "philosopher" when you break that habit.

I think you will find that consciously or subconsciously you use the same method. There is substantial evidence (MRI scans etc...) that the mind is wholly part of the brain. So a soul is very unlikely. Induction.

(Shakes his head...and gets ready for work.)

I don't really understand what a circular time dimension is. But then again, I never took a physics class. — Purple Pond

The idea is you can imagine 4D by imagining 3D. So instead of trying to visualise 4D spacetime directly which is impossible, you visualise 3D, but with 2 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. So one of the spacial dimensions gets swapped for time. Then you can think of things in spacetime as 3D objects.

In the case of circular time, the universe itself is shaped like a torus in 3D space and time runs around the outside of the ring.

But that wouldn't be living after you die. It's just you reliving your life. (If that's even possible). — Purple Pond

It happens 'after life' so it technically counts as an afterlife.