I wonder if it's possible for god to blasheme?

Do you see any flaws in the above logic? — Devans99

Yes.

What?

What? — Devans99

Yes I see flaws in your logic.

Can you point them out please.

I've answered those objections with discrete segment prime movers — Gregory

I am not sure what bearing the discrete/continuous nature of the universe has on the need for a prime mover, in either case there is motion and perpetual motion is impossible - so a prime mover or start of time is required.

... and pointing out that our physics don't apply at all to a meta-universe. — Gregory

I think it is reasonable to say cause and effect would still apply in any meta-universe / multiverse - they must be able to cause our universe - so Aquinas's arguments still seem to hold.

Can you point them out please. — Devans99

If you insist.

If, as you began your argument, there is no first cause, that does not imply that there are no other causes - indeed, my argument is that there may, for all we really know, be an infinite regress of causes - so that means that the cause you call the "2nd cause" still exists, it just isn't the 2nd one. This is the same argument as Russel made in the case of the negative integers, the fact that there is no first, simply does not imply that there are no others, it just means that you can't count them - and it really doesn't matter that he was talking about abstract numbers and you are talking about cause-effect 'events' - your argument fails because you are only proving that the causes are uncountable if the there is no first cause, just as the series of negative integers is uncountable because there is there is no first term. From that point of view, the two are exactly analogous.

To illustrate, lets take the Big Bang (as they call it)...

If you are correct and there is an ultimate first cause which was the cause of the Big Bang, then that First Cause is indeed the first cause and the Big Bang is the second cause...

But suppose there was some other sequence of physical causes of the Big Bang that preceded it, then the Big Bang is no longer the second cause, it is the umpteenth (i.e. an undefined number) cause...but it still happened and the universe it (apparently) brought into being with all its subsequent cause-effects still exists - we just can't put a number to it.

And suppose there were an undefined or infinite sequence of cause-effects leading up to the Big Bang. The Big Bang would still be one of them, just not one we could put a number to. And that is all your argument proves - that if there is no first cause, the sequence of causes of the universe as it is now is uncountable. And such it most obviously is. This does not, of course, prove that the there is an infinite regress of cause-effects, but it certainly doesn't prove there can't be.

If, as you began your argument, there is no first cause, that does not imply that there are no other causes... — Siti

The whole point of my argument was to show that causes require prior causes, without a first cause there can be nothing and that infinite causal regresses are impossible.

I think we will just have to agree to differ on this one.

The whole point of my argument was to show that causes require prior causes — Devans99

Therefore there can be no first cause...because a first cause can have no prior cause and therefore cannot exist.

Its not about agreeing to differ, your argument - and Aquinas' argument - fails for the precise reason that its conclusion is a refutation of its premise.

Of course we can agree to differ on whether we believe there have been a first cause or not, but believing something doesn't make it a logical conclusion.

Therefore there can be no first cause...because a first cause can have no prior cause and therefore cannot exist. — Siti

If the first cause is timeless then it is beyond cause and effect. This seems the only possible explanation for the origin of everything - there must be an uncaused cause somewhere - else the universe would be null and void. Only something timeless can be an uncaused cause - there is nothing sequentially/logically before such an entity - it has permanent existence.

Its not about agreeing to differ, your argument - and Aquinas' argument - fails for the precise reason that its conclusion is a refutation of its premise. — Siti

You have given no sound reason as to why the argument fails and you continue to believe in the magic of an infinite causal regression without any justification.

Maybe I can turn the question around: Please explain what causes a car to accelerate if the driver does not press the gas pedal?

If the first cause is timeless then it is beyond cause and effect. This seems the only possible explanation for the origin of everything - there must be an uncaused cause somewhere - else the universe would be null and void. Only something timeless can be an uncaused cause - there is nothing sequentially/logically before such an entity - it has permanent existence. — Devans99

But then the argument is invalidated because it is based on the premise that everything that exists has a cause.

Your argument is essentially:

There are no uncaused causes
Therefore there must be an uncaused cause

In any case, even if you're right, how do you know that it is not the universe itself that is the uncaused cause?

There are no uncaused causes
Therefore there must be an uncaused cause — Siti

You have my argument slightly wrong, it is:

- Everything in time has a cause
- Therefore there must be a timeless first cause

In any case, even if you're right, how do you know that it is not the universe itself that is the uncaused cause? — Siti

The universe exists in time and nothing can have permanent existence within past time - the universe in that case would never have started existing so could not even exist now. There must be something permanent external to (space)time to start everything off.

The universe exists in time — Devans99

No - time exists within the universe - that's probably where you're going wrong.

I should probably have said 'the matter that constitutes the universe exists within time'. Matter can't exist forever within time and with no matter the universe would be null - leading to the requirement for something external to time to start everything off.

I should probably have said 'the matter that constitutes the universe exists within time'. Matter can't exist forever within time and with no matter the universe would be null - leading to the requirement for something external to time to start everything off. — Devans99

Well no again - matter is really just a form of energy (E=mc^2) and the net energy of the universe is exactly the same now as it was "in the beginning" and ever shall be (as far as we know) - probably zero. Matter cannot exist forever (perhaps - but we don't really know that either), but the energy that matter is "made of" (or is a form of) can never be lost (or gained). How then could it have a "beginning"?

There is the zero energy universe hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

So the energy/matter would be created in the initial BB at the start of time.

Or, the energy/matter pre-existed the start of time (existed timelessly) and entered spacetime when time started.

Totally fascinating! Unfortunately, I am not comprehending what you said. I noticed my brain was trying to find a picture of what you spoke of and could find no picture. It can see a triangle, but not something to the side. This is totally off topic but I think my difficulty relating to what you said, is associated with my lack of a sense of direction. That is my inability to turn in the correct direction or find my way out of a maze. The thought conveyed by your words went into a black hole when you shifted everything to the side.

However, that triangle is thrilling! "The triad is the form of the completion of all things". Nichomachus of Gerasa (c,100, Greek neo-Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician.) The Triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentialities of the Monad." Iamblichus (c. 250-c. 330, Greek Neoplatonic philosopher.) Helium, the second atom to manifest, the first element composed of three different "charges."

"The Mayan Factor" 3. The pulsation-Ray of Rhythm 13. The Pulsation Ray of Universal Movement.
"13 represents the dynamic of movement present in everything and by which everything is ever-changing and at the same time vivified by the universal force of Hunab Ku". "Hunab Ku. The One Giver of Movement and Measure. The principle of intelligent energy that pervades the entire universe, animate or inanimate."

What do you think?

I think I understand a little what you are saying? We say the cause of boil water is the heat, but if there is no oxygen in the water will it boil? I suppose water with no oxygen wouldn't even be water, but I am getting to, things can not happen if the condition for the happening is not right and we do not have grounds for claiming this happened before that happened. Is that anywhere close to right?

Thanls Athena! I should of probably linked to a picture, here is one:



(credit: https://steemit.com/physics/@procrastilearner/intuitive-special-relativity-time-dilation)

Obviously the static clock is on the left and the moving clock on the right.

13 represents the dynamic of movement present in everything and by which everything is ever-changing and at the same time vivified by the universal force of Hunab Ku". "Hunab Ku. The One Giver of Movement and Measure. The principle of intelligent energy that pervades the entire universe, animate or inanimate — Athena

Sounds a bit like panpsychism - which maybe a possible explanation for the prime mover. I however don't believe everything can be ever changing - perpetual motion is impossible. But the universe itself may have a timeless element that is in some way intelligent and is responsible for time and the movement we see around us.

I think I understand a little what you are saying? We say the cause of boil water is the heat, but if there is no oxygen in the water will it boil? I suppose water with no oxygen wouldn't even be water, but I am getting to, things can not happen if the condition for the happening is not right and we do not have grounds for claiming this happened before that happened. Is that anywhere close to right? — Athena

I think its more the recognition that "happenings" are the real "stuff" of reality - there are really no "points" in space or "moments" in time - these are purely mental abstractions - there are only smaller or greater intervals between the "events" that reality is composed of. The universe is a continual process of happenings - so is a human being and so is an electron...so the whole is a nested and tangled web of events - not objects jumping from one "state" to another.

All we really know about "the beginning" is that it seems, for some reason entirely unknown to us, that the "region" of the universe we could - in principle - observe, suddenly began to expand from very, very small indeed to incomprehensibly huge. We have absolutely no idea whether or not any "thing" existed "before" that (and some argue that "time" began at this theoretical "singularity" - but bear in mind this impossibly small, impossibly dense "point" need not have been all there was, its just all there was of what we can possibly observe looking back from "now" in our own "space-time" bound bubble of a theoretically observable universe. There are 1001 tales about what might have been before - ekpyrotic universes, 'brane theories, multiverses, rebounding universes, cosmological natural selection...

To leap from "Big Bang" theory to "First Cause" is completely unwarranted and there is no way of knowing whether the real "entire" universe is finite or infinite (in any sense) - space and time themselves may even work very differently "beyond" the theoretically observable universe - we will never know.

For me, its just more satisfying (given all the incomprehensibility I just mentioned) to think of the universe as an enormous happening that is continually unfolding - no need to have an ultimate cause or beginning because what we see every day is always a "beginning" and an "end" and "beginnings" and "ends" will probably continue to emerge from the process of reality ad infinitum.

I'm pretty sure that hasn't made it any clearer - but I know what I mean (I think) even if nobody else does! :grin:

To leap to panpsychism or deism is to assert you understand matter completely. Matter maybe be able to do what an intelligence can do. Who knows!

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
— Albert Einstein

If life and basic conscious-ness can come from matter, who knows what else it can do. Nature is inscrutable to normal cognition. You think you know matter fully to say motion and/or matter needs something spiritual. Whatever power you give to the spiritual being or "whatever it is" (John Lennon), can be given to matter within the realm of possibility