Under the definition of a God, a God is also a first cause. This is important, because we could imagine a God that creates a being that creates a universe, considering we're dealing in all possibilities here. We would not consider the secondary being a God. Only the first cause being would be considered a God under the definition put here. — Philosophim

Of course. I understand the need to posit or approach causation with the obvious super-turtle concept known as God. But once again you're bringing ontology into your cosmological model and I think it's confusing things.

Being=Ontology
Causation=Cosmology

The reason for its existence is within itself. That doesn't prove anything. And so if there's no answer to your theory of a causational Being it becomes an ontological existential state of despair. — 3017amen

What else am I to think about besides logical necessity? How can we go forward in the world without this reason? But more importantly, how do you draw a state of despair from all of this?

If the reason for its existence is the fact that it exists, it proves an incredibly important point. That is that a first cause is not bound by necessity to a precondition. This means a first cause could be anything. That leads down into the logic we are considering at this time. I am not merely saying A=A, and leaving it at that. From A=A, I am making a whole host of logical assertions. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "That doesn't prove anything?"

Yes, I am familiar with the idea of a synthetic apriori argument. This argument is not a synthetic argument, but a logical one. This is studying the consequence of what it means that the universe has a first cause, and what by necessity, that means about that first cause. We are doing a math problem from within the limitiations we are aware of. Any attempt to argue for or against a specific God would be another argument entirely.

What else am I to think about besides logical necessity? How can we go forward in the world without this reason? But more importantly, how do you draw a state of despair from all of this? — Philosophim

1.Because you're associating a cosmological God with an ontological God.
2. Think more in terms of synthetic propositions and logical possibility.
3. The state of despair concerns the human condition viz an ontological argument based on logical necessity.

As you can see I'm harping on that.

We are doing a math problem from within the limitiations we are aware of. Any attempt to argue for or against a specific God would be another argument entirely. — Philosophim

Precisely why an ontological argument lacks meaning. It's based on mathematics which is a priori. Living life (Being) is not exclusively mathematics and a priori. It's many other things including a posteriori phenomena and induction; not math and deduction.

But once again you're bringing ontology into your cosmological model and I think it's confusing things — 3017amen

Perhaps at this point I should just reveal the flaw, because I think you understand the main tenants of the argument to get to this point. I I think you're in that ballpark. Lets sum again.

A=A A first cause has no prior preconditions to its being, therefore has no limitations to its being besides its own existence. For now call A - Big Bang and B specific universe that follows

A => B .

Now we can imagine that instead of our universe forming by the big bang, that a being could have been the first cause that formed and created our universe as it is identically.
This means the big bang (what was a first cause) is no longer the first cause, but a consequent of another first cause, in this case, a God.

A0 => B0 Is our possible universe in which there is no being, or God, as a first cause.
A God as a first cause we'll call A1.

Thus A1 => A0 => B0

But A0 is no longer a first cause. As such, it is now part of the specific universe, so we can simplify this to
(A0 => B0) = B1

A1 => B1

I then say because a God could have more than the minimum needed to create B1, that there are an infinite number of possible Gods.

So A2 => B1 and so on.

But here is the flaw. I stated there needs to be a being that creates the universe. I ascribed some type of being with the minimum power to create our universe.

"But a being doesn't exclude 'not being' from having the same situation"

We can also imagine a first cause that is not a being that would have the power to create the big bang, and our exact universe. Lets call it "the little pop" But I could have a little pop that could create our specific universe...and a little more.

Thus A2 => B1 and so on occur equally with a non-being first cause that would create our first cause universe of A0 => B0

The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held.

Does this ease your issue now? I think you were having trouble processing the idea of what a "being" entailed as I mentioned it, and you were trying to set it apart from "non being". We could call it "consciousness" if you wish, but it honestly didn't matter. I had defined two different identities, being and non-being, and given a special situation to being that non-being had no reason to be excluded from. I think that's what you were beginning to fish for. I didn't want to muddy the waters at that point anymore, because I think you were getting close. Does the flaw make sense?

Does this ease your issue now? I think you were having trouble processing the idea of what a "being" entailed as I mentioned it, and you were trying to set it apart from "non being". We could call it "consciousness" if you wish, but it honestly didn't matter. I had defined two different identities, being and non-being, and given a special situation to being that non-being had no reason to be excluded from. I think that's what you were beginning to fish for. I didn't want to muddy the waters at that point anymore, because I think you were getting close. Does the flaw make sense? — Philosophim

Take Ontology out of the equation, that would make it more conducive and appropriate for a traditional cosmological argument from physics/science/mathematics, et.al.

Traditional cosmological arguments involve physics (some metaphysics) and science.

It's either that, or if you're set on continuing to include the concept of Being in your God causation model, somehow combine the anthropic principle into your equations.

To me that would be very intriguing.

3. The state of despair concerns the human condition viz an ontological argument based on logical necessity. — 3017amen

I think this is a situation outside of the current argument. The argument is only concerned within its own scope. Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions.

I think I can see why you might be concerned, but I think that's drawing the cart before the horse.

Precisely why an ontological argument lacks meaning. It's based on mathematics which is a priori. Living life (Being) is not exclusively mathematics and a priori. It's many other things including a posteriori phenomena and induction; not math and deduction. — 3017amen

An ontological argument lacks meaning if we want to construct specific knowledge from synthetic arguments, yes. But it is not useless if we wish to discuss logical limitations before we begin our synthetic explorations. If someone says, "I don't believe a God is possible, I'm not even going to talk about it," you could give them this argument.

Perhaps as someone who believes a God is possible, you see no value in this argument. But for a person who does not see a God as possible, and believes exploring the idea of a God is a waste of time, this can be used to begin a rational conversation.

Perhaps it is useless to you, but it is not useless to everyone. Even if you do believe it to be useless, the point of the discussion was to see if you could find the flaw, and of course, to think on something new and different. Did you have fun? I really appreciate your dedication, hard thinking, and points you made during this exploration. I know I had a lot of fun! I haven't gotten to chat like this in years with someone, so thank you.

t's either that, or if you're set on continuing to include the concept of Being in your God causation model, somehow combine the anthropic principle into your equations.

To me that would be very intriguing. — 3017amen

Feel free to if you like. As I said, this was an argument from several years ago now. I'm long out of the philosophy career. If someone gets an idea from it, I hope they run with it.

Perhaps as someone who believes a God is possible, you see no value in this argument. But for a person who does not see a God as possible, and believes exploring the idea of a God is a waste of time, this can be used to begin a rational conversation. — Philosophim

Then stay with logical possibility, induction, a posteriori phenomena, metaphysics, existential angst, and other meaningful human condition kinds of concepts and philosophy.

Feel free to if you like. As I said, this was an argument from several years ago now. I'm long out of the philosophy career. If someone gets an idea from it, I hope they run with it. — Philosophim

Schopenhauer talked about the metaphysical will in nature. What in the human condition comprises the will to live or the will to die? Is it more than just instinct? Do the feelings and perceptions of one's quality of life impact a person's will to live or die? How do animals instinctively survive through naturally emergent properties? Did consciousness emerge from God's will? What is God's Will?

In Christianity, one could make a case for Jesus being an archetype of love. What is love and how does that impact Being? Is love more than instinct and if it is, what purpose does it serve? Is it partly subjective and metaphysical in nature? And if so is that a bad thing? Does love confer any biological survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to procreate?

Those kinds of questions are more meaningful than mathematics and formal logic.

If effects arise from causes, what is the cause of the first cause?

Does the ultimate/fundamental origin also have an origin?

I think the problem isn't philosophy but congruence in language.

Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions. — Philosophim

Perhaps for a next project you could explain why we should care if an argument uses sound logic if the argument has no relationship with reality. Do you conceive of the puzzle you've presented as a kind of card game? You know, a collection of arbitrary rules which are fun to inhabit for awhile? If yes, I have no complaints, but it might be helpful to state that clearly from the start.

Hello BrianW!

If effects arise from causes, what is the cause of the first cause?

Does the ultimate/fundamental origin also have an origin? — BrianW

I answer all of these questions within the points of the argument. The argument is unique, and does not fall prey to the common trappings. It might look like a pain to start reading, but you might find something new and different out of it to think on.

Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions.
— Philosophim

Perhaps for a next project you could explain why we should care if an argument uses sound logic if the argument has no relationship with reality. Do you conceive of the puzzle you've presented as a kind of card game? You know, a collection of arbitrary rules which are fun to inhabit for awhile? If yes, I have no complaints, but it might be helpful to state that clearly from the start. — Hippyhead

Let me clarify what that sentence meant in context. 3017Amen was worried about the consequences of the conclusion as an argument as to why I should not conclude that. My reply was intended to note that we cannot use the consequences of an argument, as a reason we shouldn't use the argument.

Think of going to the doctor to get screened for cancer. You might not want to hear the results, but that's not an argument against getting screened for cancer.

While I do admit the conclusion of the argument is flawed (if you've been following along, you know why), I will contend that the argument does apply to our reality in its earlier points. I conclude that it is impossible for our universe to not have had a first cause. I also conclude by logical necessity, that a first cause cannot be constrained in what it is. It does not rely on a necessary prior cause for existence. As such, if we do not know what the first cause is, it is completely logical to think one possibility, is that it is a God.

It also proves it is possible that our universe's first cause was not a God. Plenty of conclusions in reality have been determined by logical limitations and their conclusions. Here is an example:

"The idea of a spherical Earth was floated around by Pythagoras around 500 BC and validated by Aristotle a couple centuries later. If the Earth really was a sphere, Eratosthenes could use his observations to estimate the circumference of the entire planet.

Since the difference in shadow length is 7 degrees in Alexandria and Syene, that means the two cities are 7 degrees apart on Earth's 360-degrees surface. Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the distance between the two cities and learned they were 5,000 stadia apart, which is about 800 kilometres.

He could then use simple proportions to find the Earth's circumference — 7.2 degrees is 1/50 of 360 degrees, so 800 times 50 equals 40,000 kilometers. And just like that, a man 2200 years ago found the circumference of our entire planet with just a stick and his brain."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html

Logic problems cannot only find us solutions that match reality, they can drive us to see if they DO match reality. No one logically concluded the Earth must have been a dyson sphere, so no one really took that approach. But when someone said, "Logically the Earth must be round," it inspired people to either prove or disprove it.

An argument such as this then wasn't a puzzle removed from reality. It is an attempt to logically conclude what reality must be. Do you agree?

I will contend that the argument does apply to our reality in its earlier points. I conclude that it is impossible for our universe to not have had a first cause. — Philosophim

Best I can tell, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.

Seems kind of like a "because it's in the Bible" argument. First the Bible is assumed without questioning to be qualified, and then arguments are built upon that assumption.

Best I can tell, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge. — Hippyhead

The methodology was logic. There are certain things we have to assume as norms to have conversations. Imagine if every time I wanted a logical conversation with someone, I had to prove logic!

What we do is set certain assumptions on the argument. For example, "I and the reader assume that logic is a viable method to think. We have examined the precepts of logic, and have determined to agree, at least for the purposes of this argument, to the rules that logic follows."

We do that every day btw. Think about if you went to a shoe store and a clerk asked you, "What size are you sir?" Would you say your shoe size, or would you say something like, "How can you assume I'm real? What do you even mean by size? Is the size of the shoe I wear my actual size, or is it simply some abstract factory size, so it is THEIR size I am forced to wear and not mine?!

If the store clerk was patient and had lots of free time, they might entertain your questions. But more than likely, because the store clerk is there to sell you shoes, he's not really interested in such metaphysical questions.

I have long ago studied and questioned the validity of logic, and find it to be sound. As such, years later I do not start every argument or proposition with a lengthy explanation of why logic is a sound way to start.

Now if you have not completed that journey, or have found logic to not be sound, then of course you would find it difficult to enter into a conversation about logic. Perhaps you have determined that their factory size is not actually your real size, and so you have sworn off wearing factory made shoes forever. But going into the store trying to tell the man he should not be selling shoes because he has not figured out the metaphysical secrets of shoe sizes, is probably not helpful or appropriate in that context.

Same with this argument. As I stated earlier, if you would like to make a post stating why logic is not sound, I would be glad to join. Maybe you have a point. But I can't do that here when I'm just trying to sell shoes. My customers do not question the metaphysics of shoe size, and just want to buy some shoes. =)

But I can't do that here when I'm just trying to sell shoes. My customers do not question the metaphysics of shoe size, and just want to buy some shoes. =) — Philosophim

.... But with all due respect we're not selling shoes. We're discussing philosophy viz the concept of a God.

Logic is just a means to an end.

I've found the truth and it is provably true! I cannot present it because it will spoil the fun. I can verify it's truth once it is presented if anyone would desire that.

I've found the truth and it is provably true! I cannot present it because it will spoil the fun. I can verify it's truth once it is presented if anyone would desire that. — Edgy Roy

If you're trying to mock my post, I revealed the flaw on page 3 between 3017amen and myself. It was a fun and good discussion. Not everyone enjoys tackling a logic puzzle, but there's no need to come over here and mock those who do right?

The methodology was logic. — Philosophim

Agreed.

There are certain things we have to assume as norms to have conversations. — Philosophim

Why? I'm not assuming logic to be qualified for god questions, and I'm still having a conversation.

Imagine if every time I wanted a logical conversation with someone, I had to prove logic! — Philosophim

But we're not talking about "every time we have a conversation" but instead a specific conversation on the very largest question regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can not define in even the most basic manner. The rest of your post just multiplies that confusion.

Apologies, really not meaning to offend, but what's happening here is that you keep defending the universal relevance of human reason, while declining to do human reason yourself. We don't just blindly assume things to be true in philosophy, just because we want them to be true.

Again, in fairness to you, the mistake you're making has been repeated by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides of the question, most likely including all your philosophy professors. And so you are understandably assuming that you are on solid ground in believing logic to be relevant to every question no matter how large.

A side benefit of this conversation could be a re-examination of your relationship with authority. Should you look closely enough, you'll find there is a whole lot of "the emperor has no clothes" going on. Those who have authority positions are typically those with a gift for playing the authority game, a skill which really has little to do with philosophy.

Logic is just a means to an end — 3017amen

And one can use logic to discover that logic is not an effective means for every desired end.

Absolutely and right-on brother! For one, that's what Phenomenology entails (i.e.: the ineffable experience)!

For one, that's what Phenomenology entails (i.e.: the ineffable experience)! — 3017amen

I'm all for ineffable experiences, but things begin to get a bit dodgy when we start talking about ineffable conclusions.

It's called inductive reasoning; not deduction (which is what the OP is primarily based upon).

It's called inductive reasoning — 3017amen

How about this?

Skip the reasoning and stick with the experience.

Attempts to explain the experience are really a statement that the experience is inadequate on it's own. Is that true?

Nice! I like that reasoning. Kind of reminds me of the phenomena of love. "I don't really know how to explain it, but I feel so in love".

However, should we share our experiences with other's? Maybe that's the question... . When it all comes down to it, if life is about relationships (platonic, romantic, family, friends, foes, co-workers, etc..) what value is there in sharing experiences with each other(?).

One answer would be for inspirational purposes...

However, should we share our experiences with other's — 3017amen

I'm enthusiastic about discussions regarding the practical business of how to have healthy experiences. To me, that seems the serious way to proceed.

Interpreting such experiences is probably inevitable, but taking our interpretations seriously isn't. For me, that works kind of like this. You're laying on your back watching the clouds blow by overhead. Each cloud is some interpretation of experience which has occurred to you. You watch a cloud come, admire it's unique beauty, watch it blow away, and then turn your attention to the next cloud. Some attitude along these lines allows one to be honest about the human need for explanations, but tends to keep the primary focus where it belongs, on the experience.

It seems to me that the more deeply one embraces the experience, the less need there is for explanations. Hmm... Perhaps this merits it's own thread?

I can't even remember what thread I'm in half the time anyway. Is this the thread about Chaturbate? Did I click a wrong link??? :-)

seems to me that the more deeply one embraces the experience, the less need there is for explanations. Hmm... Perhaps this merits it's own thread? — Hippyhead

Though I don't know if it's been covered before (you could always do a search) I'd say go for it! I'll certainly support it!

Perhaps the only other question would be what category to put it in. For instance, if you want to relate it to William James, Maslow and others (cognitive science) wherein they wrote books about the religious experience that's one approach. Or in the alternative you could be more secular about it as it were, and approach it more from an epistemological perspective...

wherein they wrote books about the religious experience that's one approach. Or in the alternative you could be more secular about it — 3017amen

What I'd really like to do is transcend the religious vs. secular paradigm, as that's what is implied by devaluing explanations. But yea, where to put it on the forum? Good question, will ponder.

It's just another endless loop, isn't it. Sure, it assumes one unique first cause. However, what does it say about the arising of other unique causes. The logical question that has never been answered isn't the probability of God/first cause or the assumption of such (because if we exist, then an origin is entirely feasible), but the why (purpose) and how (methodology) of it. This is because neither purpose nor method is unique (at least from the perspective of limitless probabilities/possibilities/assumptions).

Logic is about defining the purpose and process alongside the aforementioned what (fact/truth/reality/existence). That's when we deem it to be concrete knowledge/understanding of something. Otherwise, any number of assumptions/probabilities/possibilities become the most likely conclusion, each according to its own narrative. Soon enough, that narrative becomes insufficient (and seeks support - string theory, creation in six days, etc), or worse, boring.

The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. — Philosophim

This statement is the query and its own answer. Logic, reason, common sense, knowledge, understanding, explanations, beliefs, etc, etc, are based on rules (configurations of limits/boundaries).

"The first cause must be X" from this argument. You can only conclude a first cause is what must be, and that this first cause could be anything. — Philosophim

Since I was not presenting a formal logical argument for academic review, I had more liberty than you in reaching my conclusion. So. I tried to infer what properties a First Cause would have to possess in order to create the world we know.

One of those requirements was that the Prime Cause must be Intentional (non-random), because random chance in our world is incapable of creating organization. Some scientists like to imagine that evolution is a blind random process. But they don't take into account that Natural Selection is a sort of If-then algorithm making on-the-spot choices, based on whatever criteria were programmed into the algorithm in the beginning. Atheists will presuppose that the selection criteria were an accidental result of infinite roiling randomness. I just take it as-it-is in the here & now.

This Natural Algorithm is just one of many facts that led me to conclude that the “Programmer” of our world must have some of the characteristics typically attributed to creator gods. Hence the FC couldn't be "just anything". For example it must have the Potential to create (cause) space, time and mind. If the hypothetical Multiverse has that programming power, then it could be the First Cause.

And it would loosely fit my Real & Ideal definition of G*D. Who, like Spinoza's deity, is both metaphysical (Ideal) and the physical (Real) "substance" of reality. Spinoza arrived at his infinite/eternal Substance concept of God, long before the Big Bang theory dispelled the notion that our world is eternal. So, in my thesis, there is a need for a creative act, but not for a humanoid Person --- merely the power of BEING.

Natural Algorithm : In computer science and operations research, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a metaheuristic inspired by the process of natural selection that belongs to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

My statement is, "It is logically possible that a God exists from the conclusion that there is a first cause." No atheist can claim that a God is an illogical or impossible being at this point. — Philosophim

Yes. The famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins once wrote that he had no rational problem with Deism as a religious philosophy. But that was probably because he assumed the non-intervening Deus was a do-nothing deity, and was only a logical possibility (thought-stopper) for those who don't like the idea of a godless world.

For me though, the Deus is not only possible, but the Necessary Being. And my thesis proposes that the Prime Programmer would have no need to tinker with his evolutionary system once it had been executed in the Big Bang. Unfortunately, that also means that humans were provided with sufficient smarts to work-out their own problems, without praying for personal favors.

Spectrum of theistic probability : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Cosmic Computer Programmer : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page26.html

I wanted to assure you that we do not fall into the "Gods all the way down" argument. — Philosophim

Thanks. I didn't think you meant it was “turtles all the way down”. But origin-less causation is a common response to First Cause arguments.

I think you have a different definition of a God then I do, which is perfectly fine, and it seems nice. This argument here is more about a pure philosophical God, that is extremely limited in scope. — Philosophim

Yes. After I discovered the basic principle of Enformationism --- that Information was not just dumb data (per Shannon) --- I was no longer content with my Agnostic Deistic "god-of-the-philosophers", who is merely an impotent metaphor, or a statistical probability. My G*D (Enformer) has real world powers, that are dismissed by reductive scientists, because you have to think holistically in order to see the Enforming power working in the natural world. And it's overlooked by most Theists, because they are looking for minor miracles, like a drowning victim who revived. But I am much more impressed by the miracle of creating an autonomous living world-organism from scratch.

My G*D definition is based on a very particular line of reasoning that began with an unusual understanding of the role of Information in the world. Information is not just a container for ideas & values, it is also the cause of new forms of matter (energy). That's why I define G*D, not just as a logical First Cause, but as the active agent Enformer (creator) of everything in the world.

What is Information ? : The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. It's Energy & Matter & Mind
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

God of the philosophers : What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. __Blaise Pascal

does my assessment that if we look at our universe, there is only one possibility that its first cause was not a God, versus an infinite number of possibilities [,but] that the first cause was some type of God? — Philosophim

I added the "but" in quotes to make it say what I think you meant : "the First Cause is a God". With that I agree. For several years, I tried to find some alternative to the familiar, but baggage-laden, term "God" to refer to my 21st century Enformer/Programmer notion. So, I compromised with a neologism, G*D, that suggested a deity, but not necessarily the God of Theists.

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Logically, the bare possibility of a First Cause may be a satisfactory conclusion. But scientifically, I want to know much more about the actualities of Causation. And that is the point of my thesis -- in which I didn't use the term "God".

Enformationism thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html

Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/