Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow. — Philosophim
Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. — Philosophim
Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? — Antony Nickles
Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim? — Philosophim
This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality... * * *
Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this? — Philosophim
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim
Well here I partly beg off. — Antony Nickles
If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. — Antony Nickles
8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. — Philosophim
Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?" — Philosophim
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim
No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur. — SophistiCat
I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles. — SophistiCat
Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time. — Hippyhead
I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion. — Philosophim
What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. — Hippyhead
I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. — Philosophim
It appears - I could be wrong and I have not read the whole thread - that there is confusion between and about man-made deities and actual deities. — tim wood
Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense? — Philosophim
Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?
Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense? — Philosophim
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim
No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. — SophistiCat
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim
And for things outside logic or the "line of causality"? Or if there is no such line or logic? Given causality, the problem of a first cause does indeed seem a problem. But given it arises from a contradiction, how do you resolve that?I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause.... In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, — Philosophim
Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? — Philosophim
Causality - an actual prior state in time before the current state in time.
I think so, now mine. I have zero argument with yours. Instead I step outside of it to see how it looks from without, as opposed to from within. In one move that suspends all of what appear to be your presuppositions, and it also lays bare the functionality of some of what you take for granted. Nor is this an attack; I merely invite you to look from my vantage point. And it appears to me that, e.g., the concept of cause is a structural piece of how you're looking. And outside of that, I simply don't see it. By no means do I deny its utility and efficacy where it's useful and efficacious.Does this clarify my position? — Philosophim
Let us think of slices of time as "states". — Philosophim
Let us think of slices of time as "states". At its most simple, we would have a snapshot. But we could also have states that are seconds, hours, days, years, etc. We determine the scale. Within a state, we analyze the existence that has occurred. Causality is the actual prior state, not potential prior state, that existed which actually lead to the current state we are evaluating. — Philosophim
If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did. — Philosophim
The only thing I can logically conclude from the above premises, is that there is no cause for the existence of any potential universe. Whatever universe exists, exists without prior explanation.
Lets examine this thought process before I move on. Does this clarify my position? — Philosophim
The "problem" then - quotes because it really isn't a problem - is to find "cause" primordially. And at best I can't. — tim wood
You would have to assume an absolute time for that, that is, something like a Newtonian universe. In a relativistic universe there is no fact of the matter about how the space-time is to be sliced along the time dimension (the technical term for this is foliation). — SophistiCat
You are conflating reasons with causes — SophistiCat
If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did. — Philosophim
To the extent that this makes any sense, this was a very convoluted path to an uncontroversial conclusion: in a causal model with an initial state, the initial state is the cause of all subsequent states, and there is no cause for the initial state. — SophistiCat
I only mention this, as relativity does not negate what I am saying about states. In fact, relativity is essential to my claim about states. Make the unit of time within whatever relative time frame you want. That doesn't negate the point. Regardless, lets not over complicate the issue and make this about relativity. — Philosophim
Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause? — Philosophim
Let's try this way. Let's assume you have as claimed logically proven the universe must have had a first cause. Right away the "logical" leaps out: why exactly is it there? But more simply, given it's logically proven, how do you get from there to any assertion that it applies to the universe?No offense taken if this is something you are not willing to entertain. — Philosophim
The relevance of relativity is not towards the relativity of duration, but towards the relativity of simultaneity. — SophistiCat
Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?
— Philosophim
Some other time perhaps. — SophistiCat
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.