I see. So "X: represents an existent prior causality to Y" is an hypothetical element. So, we don't know whether Y exists or not and we don't know whether X exists or not. OK, there's no conflict in this, but also there's no ground where I can stand on. And maybe the same holds for Z and Alpha ... In short, everything is possible!No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. — Philosophim
This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:
What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...
Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things! — Alkis Piskas
But we can only conclude logic with what we know today correct? — Philosophim
do I fail at philosophy here? — Philosophim
We don’t know there is a first cause, yet we conclude logically there must be one. What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww
Unless of course you can negate the argument. Currently its what I'm waiting for to hear from people. Because if people don't, then philosophically, this debate and any debate about finite vs infinite regression is concluded.there’s nothing to which a complementary negation doesn’t equally fit — Mww
What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww
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
What I did was take cause up to its logical conclusion. — Philosophim
There are only two alternatives. If one is logically eliminated from actually being possible, only the other remains. — Philosophim
True enough, but not quite what I said. We don’t observe every change, but the changes we observe all have causes. — Mww
Indeed. Thank you. This doesn't happen often to me!I've given you something to think and wonder on — Philosophim
The two alternatives here being necessity and possibility? — Mww
It follows that if the validation given by experience is continued in kind into the infinite range of effects contingent on causes, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause that is not itself an effect. — Mww
a way out of the OPs conundrum is to note that cause and effect are bound together, two sides of one coin. — frank
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
To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. — EricH
And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. — EricH
I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge. — frank
And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.
But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.
But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned. — EricH
I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause — EricH
Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ — EricH
Anything can be claimed, but for it to matter, it must be logically shown. — Philosophim
The only hard rule for an alpha, is that its initial existence for being has no X. — Philosophim
I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank
No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief. — Philosophim
I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".
There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g. — EricH
People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments. — EricH
So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. — EricH
everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof. — Artemis
but it is not knowledge.
— Philosophim
It's Kantian knowledge. — frank
I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim. — Philosophim
Nahhhh.......you couldn’t pay me enough to agree with that, if I’m being honest. The same thing cannot both have an unknown cause and no cause at all. — Mww
I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank
No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief.
— Philosophim
And with that little tidbit of philosophical wonderment.....I’m out. I recognize a dead horse when I see one. Sorry. — Mww
I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety. — Artemis
Feel free to better explain how I am making this equivocation then. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from. — Philosophim
I already explained several times, including in the remainder of the post that you quoted. I don't feel like spending more of my time on this. — SophistiCat
Assuming that the world regresses infinitely into the past, if there is an explanation for that, that explanation doesn't in any way negate the premise. Nor does the absence of an explanation. — SophistiCat
"Cause" is sometimes used in a loose sense, synonymous with explanation, reason, grounding. In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — 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.