No, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. The conclusion is that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, not a first event that is uncaused. The overall claim, of course, is that God caused the first event.if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS
As I understand it, the supporting argument is that there cannot have been an actual infinite series of causes, because it never would have been completed by reaching the present.Thus, the claim in the second premise the there can be no infinite regress of causes is simply an unsupported assumption. — ModernPAS
if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPASNo, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. The conclusion is that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, not a first event that is uncaused. The overall claim, of course, is that God caused the first event. — aletheist
“Nothing can be its own first cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.” — ModernPAS
More accurately, every series of events has a first uncaused cause.What we can conclude is that every event has a first uncaused cause or causes. — Bartricks
Which is exactly what I said; please read more carefully.The whole point of the argument is to establish that not all causation can be by events. — Bartricks
already addressed that--"then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible.”What I do not understand is why something cannot be the cause of itself. — Bartricks
This is not a counterexample, because the indentation is not causing itself.Well, it is still true that the ball is causing the indentation, even though there was no time prior to the indentation when it was caused. — Bartricks
this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts — aletheist
This is not a counterexample, because the indentation is not causing itself. — aletheist
if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS
No, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. — aletheist
Okay, but it still does not demonstrate that something can cause itself. Besides, if the ball and cushion "have always existed in that arrangement," then nothing caused the indentation, since the cushion was never in any other shape.The example shows that one thing can cause another without preceding it. — Bartricks
Okay, but it still does not demonstrate that something can cause itself. Besides, if the ball and cushion "have always existed in that arrangement," then nothing caused the indentation, since the cushion was never in any other shape. — aletheist
That is an unwarranted assumption that is not even part of the argument as presented in the OP. In fact, it directly contradicts its very first premiss--"Every event has a cause."There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — Bartricks
No, you did not. If the indentation has always existed, then nothing caused it--not the ball, not the cushion, and certainly not the indentation itself.I showed that the assumption that all causation requires a cause that is prior to its effect is false. — Bartricks
There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — Bartricks
No, you did not. If the indentation has always existed, then nothing caused it--not the ball, not the cushion, and certainly not the indentation itself. — aletheist
Right, the result of a cause is just what an event is. An "uncaused event" is a self-contradiction.That's just what an event is — Bartricks
Lots of true propositions, especially in philosophy, are counterintuitive.That's counter-intuitive. — Bartricks
On the contrary, it entails that nothing caused the indentation, since there was no event of changing its shape.Finding out that the ball has always been on the cushion does not call that into question. — Bartricks
Right, the result of a cause is just what an event is. An "uncaused event" is a self-contradiction. — aletheist
Lots of true propositions, especially in philosophy, are counterintuitive. — aletheist
Which argument? The one in the OP? I agree with that premiss, and even offered a supporting argument for it.Premise 2 of the argument is highly intuitively. — Bartricks
My worldview has nothing to do with it. If the indentation has always been present, then nothing caused it.Rejecting it becusae it doesn't fit with one's favourite worldview is incompetent. — Bartricks
My worldview has nothing to do with it. If the indentation has always been present, then nothing caused it. — aletheist
The OP is correct in what they say. There must be an event - so, an occurrence, a happening - that is uncaused. — Bartricks
if I showed you the ball on the cushion and asked you the cause of the indentation, you - and everyone else possessed of reason and not in the grips of a theory - would agree that the cause was the ball. — Bartricks
if there can be no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an event that is uncaused. — ModernPAS
No, this would imply that every event is caused by another event, which is not what the first premiss asserts. The conclusion is that there must be a first cause that is uncaused, not a first event that is uncaused. — aletheist
I honestly thought that we were addressing the question, "What caused the cushion to be indented in the first place?" I am not seeing how this other question is relevant to the OP.What, right now, is causing the cushion to be indented? — Bartricks
I always try to do so, but admittedly do not always succeed. My point was simply that the argument does not require an uncaused event; i.e., I was (gently) trying to correct the mistake in the OP.I ask you to read charitably. — Bartricks
Causer, cause. Whatever. Means the same and doesn't "entail a psyche". — Bartricks
I honestly thought that we were addressing the question, "What caused the cushion to be indented in the first place?" I am not seeing how this other question is relevant to the OP. — aletheist
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.