Relax, it was just a book recommendation. — Artemis

Not pertinent to the discussion. If you want to discuss book recommendations, I'm sure there's a post somewhere that would be happy to have you.

I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no?

Phishing for more credit than you deserve, friend, ain't the way to get it. — 180 Proof

It wasn't the intention. You gave me a counter to the Kalem argument as a counter to my argument, when my argument, wait for it...is a counter to the Kalem argument. I expect better of a long time forum goer as yourself to catch yourself on mistakes when pointed out, not double down.

However...I noticed you edited one of your earlier posts to include some actual substance. If we discuss this way, I don't care about the previous stuff. I just want a good conversation.

There can be no underlying reason for why the universe is.
— Philosophim
This is my counter to the OP's premises.

It simply is, no matter the type of origin we invent.
"The type of origin we invent" matters to degree it is consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. Logic, as it were, is merely the syntax of any "origin we invent" and not metaphysically determinative as you apparently to believe. — 180 Proof

Yes, I agree that the type of origin we invent must be consistent with the best available observational data and measurements. I note this in part 4 when describing an alpha. You can lead up the chain of causality to find the origin. The question is not about a specific origin like the big bang or plank space. It is the logical conclusion that there must be an origin of explanations that eventually arrives at the conclusion, "It just is".

The big bang, if it is the first cause, is. But even if we conceptualize the idea that there is infinite regression, the reason for why there is infinite regression does not have a prior cause, it simply is. Meaning that logically, there is something in our universe that has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.

Not pertinent to the discussion. — Philosophim

I thought you said you read it? :rofl:

I thought you said you read it? :rofl: — Artemis

I thought you said it was just a book recommendation? Troll elsewhere Artemis.

I'm just basing it off the PoSR. The PoSR can only stipulate an X, with only empirical observations entertaining an alpha, no? — Shawn

There is no reason prior to observation, to believe that there is some prior causality to anything. It is the belief that there must be an X that drives us to look for that X. Hume called our belief in causality a "habit of the mind". While I disagree that we cannot eventually know causality upon study, the idea that there must be a prior causality is not a proven statement, but a belief. My conclusion here is that we can be logically certain that eventually there is something within the chain of causality that is not caused by anything prior.

But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it?

Gibberish. Sorry, man. You've no evidence. I didn't read your argument but you give plently that you haven't read my 2 logical and physical counter-arguments aimed directly as your premise. You expect to have a "conversation" about your OP and yet you haven't thought through either what you're saying or the substance of oppositions to it. :meh:

But, ex nihilo arguments would seem to contradict a first cause argument. Or at least doesn't constitute a first cause, does it? — Shawn

Mind stating which specific ex nihilo argument contradicts the points here? I just need more specifics, I am enjoying your points.

Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example, according to some physicists.

Gibberish. Sorry, man. You've no evidence I didn't read your argument but you give plently that you haven't read my 2 logical and physical counter-arguments aimed directly as your premise. You expect a conversation and yet haven't thought through either what you're saying or the substance of oppositions to it. :meh: — 180 Proof

Maybe you missed my most recent reply. Yes, I noted you linked the kalem argument and an argument about plank space. Neither of those arguments addressed the point I am making. Now, maybe they did. Feel free to point out specifically the parts of the argument that are countered by those arguments. If I am wrong, I will apologize without shame.

Further, one of your original posts I quoted you added some details to after. I caught the edit, and addressed them in my prior post. Again, no worry if we got off on the wrong foot or we misunderstood each other's intentions. All I want is a conversation from people who can examine the argument and provide good criticism for conversation.

Existence of the universe, existing universe. That's probably a term that would lead to less troubles than causes or reasons.

Yup. :up:

Something of the sort that something came out of nothing. Such as the existence of the universe, for example? — Shawn

What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"

"Nothing" cannot cause something. That we logically know to be true. The argument shows that the only thing which must necessarily be, is that something within our universe has no reason for its existence, besides the fact of its existence. It has no prior cause for being. I note that this is logically necessary, because the only alternative that I can think of, "infinite regression" does not in fact have a prior reason as to why the universe should be infinitely regressive.

I think the opening for criticism here, is whether I am correct on that last part. What do you think? Can you point out a flaw there?

The premise has been twice refuted by logic and physics, therefore your argument fails. Period. Stop kidding yourself – the OP is that weak. There's nothing more to discuss unless you adopt another unrefuted premise and thereby make (at least) a valid argument.

Everyone apparently knows what a cause is (especially in this context). I do not. Will someone enlighten me so that I may understand the discussion?

What that argument is doing is applying causality to "nothing". If I say, "Nothing caused this to exist," isn't it the same as saying, "This thing that exists has no prior cause?"

"Nothing" cannot cause something. — Philosophim

I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

That's just my take on the issue.

The premise has been twice refuted by logic and physics, therefore your argument fails. Period. Stop kidding yourself – the OP is that weak. There's nothing more to discuss unless you adopt another unrefuted premise and thereby make (at least) a valid argument. — 180 Proof

It would be nice to see that refutation by logic and physics. And to hear what you think the premise actually is. But if you cannot provide it, I have no choice but to think you either do not have that refutation by logic and physics, or you don't understand the premise. Later.

Hi Tim. Yes, this OP presupposed some information that absolutely should be defined.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state of existence. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball, which then transfers to the 8 ball, which then sinks in the right corner pocket.

If we shake this magic 8 ball for a minute, we discover that it moved because of the force applied from the cue ball. In other words, the 8 ball didn't just move itself without any internal or external force. It did not move "simply because it moved". A first cause would be if the 8 ball moved and there was no reason why it should have moved, internally, or externally.

Does that clarify causality? Do you have another take on it?

I would state at this point that this new possibility negates the necessarily so conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

That's just my take on the issue. — Shawn

A good conversation then. We'll have to go our own way with our own beliefs. I appreciate you taking the topic seriously. Have a good day!

Which if you feel that way, is fine. But why? — Philosophim

For the reason I described - I thought my point was not central to your argument and I didn't want to send your discussion off on a tangent. Here are a few thoughts. I haven't written about this much, so this is not well developed argument:

The idea that causation is not a good way of thinking about how the word works is not a new one. Bertrand Russell wrote about it more than 100 years ago.

Sometimes it seems like all of philosophy comes back to the infinite regress argument. I've been surprised at some places it has shown up. People act as if it makes a difference, but it seems more of an aesthetic affectation than anything substantive. It seems like more trouble than it's worth.

The pool table is a metaphor often used to clarify the idea of causality. It represents a very simple closed system with no energy input from outside except for a single specific force applied at a specific point at a specific time. Nothing in the real world is that simple or that isolated.

In reality, if events are effects at all, they are caused by multiple, independent, long chains of events. Practically speaking, in almost any realistic real-world situation, those chains are impossible to chase back more than a step or two, it that.

Most of our understanding of the world is based on statistical effects. It's not the action of two balls on a pool table, it's the mass action of trillions of molecules in a tank. Pressure and temperature are not caused by molecular motion, they are defined by it.

I've run out of steam, but there's more I'm sure.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist?

It would be nice to see that refutation by logic and physics. And to hear what you think the premise actually is. — Philosophim

:roll: :confused:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/617855

For the reason I described - I thought my point was not central to your argument and I didn't want to send your discussion off on a tangent. — T Clark

Not a worry. We're here to discuss philosophy, and I'm interested to see other people's take.

Most of our understanding of the world is based on statistical effects. It's not the action of two balls on a pool table, it's the mass action of trillions of molecules in a tank. — T Clark

I agree 100%. I start by keeping things simple until people want to push it to the next level. In the same vein, there is nothing to necessitate there only be one first cause. There could have been many first causes. In theory, there could be first causes happening in the universe now that we're unaware of. But much like multiverse theory, its something we really can't test easily, if at all.

Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist? — InPitzotl

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball. The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state because the cue ball struck it with a certain amount of force. You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.

Causality is the idea that a snapshot of existence is in the state that it is because of some prior state of existence. Lets use a pool table for example. If I shoot a cue ball into the 8 ball, a certain amount of force is applied to the cue ball,.... Does that clarify causality? — Philosophim

Yes. thank you! Of course it does. "Causality....because." Hmm. And snapshots. Nothing is happening in a snapshot. But this just caviling on my part.

It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. And I wonder if that distinction has been made, or even seen, because accounts themselves are just convenient fictions. What makes the eight-ball move? You, in stroking the cue ball with the cue into the eight-ball? The cue, in driving the cue ball into the eight-ball? The cue ball, in striking the eight ball? And when, exactly, does it happen and how long does it take? Usually cause is distinguished from effect; cause then effect. But that won't stand scrutiny. Cause and effect must be simultaneous, or if temporally extended, then overlapping, if they're anything at all. I'm told that scientists no longer use the notion of cause, except as a convenient fiction, using instead the idea of fields. But how that works someone else will have to make clear.

In sum, I do not think any discussion of cause, looked at closely, will yield anything beyond its own limits. And of course the discussion of cause here is intended exactly to go beyond those limits.

Perhaps it's just a version of the question of something from nothing. But with that, great care is needed to keep apart just what nothings and somethings are being referred to. For example, for a scientist, I am not sure nothing exists or is even possible.

Fine, this one time I'll go over your straw man arguments.

Your first link starts with,

"the premise [ ... ] everything has to have a cause to exist
— Varese
... is patently false. See Causa sui, etc ... follow links for further contexts."

So if you read the conclusion of the argument, you agree with me. A first cause is an "uncaused cause". It is existent without prior explanation. When I read the first sentence that agreed with my point, but you were implying it contradicted my point, I knew you hadn't read it.

Your second point in that same link was,

""3. An infinite regress ... is impossible"

False."

I never claim infinite regression is impossible. In fact, I assume its possible, and think about the consequences if it is true in the argument.

So again, your first link posits two points which agree with what I've stated in the argument. When you imply this counters my argument, what am I to think except for the fact that you didn't read it? If you were someone knew to philosophy, I would assume you simply didn't understand it. But combined with the initial troll in the beginning, I can only conclude you didn't read, and STILL haven't read it.

For your second post, the first two parts I have no disagreement with. Only your last part,

- Was there a first cause?
No.

disagrees with my end premise, but contains no explanation why there would be no first cause as defined in my argument. Just read the argument 180 proof. You clearly have the intelligence for it, and you might even agree with my conclusion.

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it.

It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood

The classic Hume approach. I believe Hume is correct in our belief that consistent cause that will repeat in the future is something unknowable. Why should the rules of physics be the same tomorrow? That does not mean we cannot accurately find the rules of physics today through experimentation and scientific elimination. When we do have faith that causality will continue to work, our faith is fulfilled. It is the habit of belief that causality will be maintained that Hume rightly points out as an induction, but that does not deny that causality cannot be deduced.

Cause is generally measured through the application of distinct force over time. You can set the time scale to however back you wish. But what must be consistent is that a chain of force events occur that necessarily lead to the present time of the 8 ball. Clearly if some ne'er do well were to attempt to drop an 8 ball 3 stories up on my head, no court of law would question whether they attempted to use gravity to drop the 8 ball on my head. We can discuss the types of force involved, the scale of the forces involved, and scale of time involved, but no one denies that prior events cause the events of today.

And it is simply that cause that I am addressing. I do not think the argument stretches those limits, but perhaps you can point out where it does.

Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it. — _db

This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality.

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball. — Philosophim

Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.

The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state — Philosophim

Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?

You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted. — Philosophim

Sure... would that be a new thing existing?