Either an infinite number of events has occurred or there's a first cause.

An infinite number of events hasn't occured (proof?) — Agent Smith

I never claimed that in the OP. Please re-read again, or check some of the better follow up comments. I stated even if an infinite number of prior events occur, that there is still the question of, "Why is the universe set up in a way to have infinite regress? The answer is, "It just is."

That sounds pretty contradictory to me, despite the lack of an empirical test to directly falsify either. — noAxioms

It doesn't to me. Neither eliminates causality, which is all I care about. B theory also does not eliminate time. There is still clearly a past state, present state, and future state. The past state causes the present state, and the present state causes the future state. To counter the argument you have to eliminate causality, and I don't see B theory doing that. If you think it does, please point out how.

There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity. — noAxioms

Sorry, its been a while since I've read the specific vocabulary of relativity. I generally remember relativity from years ago and many of the consequences of it. But I did not see how it countered the OP's points.

The Andromeda argument has nothing to do with Y, or anything measured or caused for that matter. Do you understand what is being illustrated by the example? — noAxioms

No. If it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, I'm not concerned. That's been my point. I don't see how it counters the arguments of the OP.

My argument against that is that there is no coordinate system that meets the requirements, forcing the interpretation to deny the existence of parts of spacetime. — noAxioms

Reading up on B theory again, I did not see how B theory ignored parts of spacetime.

All the prior cause did was change the arrangement of the coins over time. I don’t consider that a change to anything’s existence — noAxioms

I do. That is a change in spatial location. When one state is different from the next, that is change. And a change in state either has a prior cause, or does not. Regardless, even if there was not a change over time, there is still a cause of why the state did not change either. Again, it is about states. Why does Y state exist?

That sounds pretty contradictory to me
— noAxioms
It doesn't to me. Neither eliminates causality, which is all I care about. — Philosophim

They might both describe causality to your satisfaction, but that isn’t sufficient for the two interpretations to not be mutually exclusive. If one says ‘M’ and the other says ‘~M’, they can’t both be right.

B theory also does not eliminate time. There is still clearly a past state, present state, and future state. — Philosophim

B theory indeed does not eliminate time, since it is essentially a dimension in that view. It does explicitly deny past, present and future state, so that assertion about it is wrong. Really, read up on it if you want to digress from your OP and actually present a valid objection to the view.

The past state causes the present state, and the present state causes the future state. To counter the argument you have to eliminate causality, and I don't see B theory doing that. If you think it does, please point out how. — Philosophim

Causality would say that any given state (Y say) is caused by some prior state (X, per your example), and causes Z, all without any of those states being past, present, or future. There is only the relation of one event being prior to another, or ambiguously ordered. If two events are ambiguously ordered (frame dependent ordering), then the principle of locality says that neither event can be the cause of the other. There are interpretations of QM that deny that principle and allow situations where effect is in the past of the cause.
Point is, all that can be described without reference to any objective state of said events. There is only relative ordering (this before that, but not this has happened but that has not yet happened).

There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity.
— noAxioms
Sorry, its been a while since I've read the specific vocabulary of relativity. I generally remember relativity from years ago and many of the consequences of it. But I did not see how it countered the OP's points. — Philosophim

The scenario shows how two events, say months apart but in the same approximate location, are nevertheless both simultaneous to this one event on Earth (the event of my greeting my friend in passing). There cannot be two present moments a month apart in Andromeda, so it is contradictory if both my friend and I are correct about what’s going on over there currently. That’s where the original major suggestion supporting B theory originated. All of relativity theory is based on B premises.

Do you understand what is being illustrated by the example?
— noAxioms
No. If it doesn't have anything to do with the OP, I'm not concerned. — Philosophim

and yet most of these posts are about this topic, and not causality. I tried to clarify the point in the paragraph above.

That's been my point. I don't see how it counters the arguments of the OP. — Philosophim

It was brought up to a different post of yours in this topic. It is relevant to the OP, because according to A theory, the universe itself, or at least the initial state, needs to be caused, which is the something-from-nothing connundrum. What caused the rules by which uncaused events are legal in the first place?

My argument against that is that there is no coordinate system that meets the requirements, forcing the interpretation to deny the existence of parts of spacetime.
— noAxioms
Reading up on B theory again, I did not see how B theory ignored parts of spacetime. — Philosophim

It doesn’t. It’s A theory that cannot handle this problem. That’s why I posted it when you asked me why B is better.

All the prior cause did was change the arrangement of the coins over time. I don’t consider that a change to anything’s existence
— noAxioms
I do. That is a change in spatial location. When one state is different from the next, that is change. — Philosophim

I’d have said change over time, but that’s not the point. If you read the comment, it was non-existence to existence that I was discussing. Then again, it very much depends on one’s definition of ‘exists’, which in turn is dependent on ones interpretation of time. So the time discussion really turns out to be relevant.
B-theory says the coin-smiley exists. The rearrangement of the coins over time doesn’t affect that at all since all events (coins in smiley pattern, coins in different pattern) all exist equally. So the change over time was caused, but the existence wasn’t affected. And that’s not even using my relational definition of ‘exists’.

They might both describe causality to your satisfaction, but that isn’t sufficient for the two interpretations to not be mutually exclusive. — noAxioms

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive based on how I describe state relations in the OP. Feel free to point out where this exclusion exists.

B theory indeed does not eliminate time, since it is essentially a dimension in that view. It does explicitly deny past, present and future state, so that assertion about it is wrong. — noAxioms

If I understand correctly, its the elimination of past, present, and future as a non-relative view point. If you have time, you have a prior state, a current state, and a potential future state, which is in line with the OP. Time as relativity does not counter the state relation. If I'm using the words, past, present, and future, note it is for ease of understanding in a state relation argument on a forum, not a science article. If I posted a B series interpretation, this topic wouldn't have reached many people. That's not the goal here.

If you see me use past, present, and future, just replace it in your head with prior, current, and post in a relative sense. This shouldn't be difficult. And if you insist on removing past, present, and future, or time itself, then just state "X" is the immediate influence or cause on "Y". Again, this doesn't affect the OP. If it does, please specifically point out using citation, where it does.

There is only the relation of one event being prior to another, or ambiguously ordered. If two events are ambiguously ordered (frame dependent ordering), then the principle of locality says that neither event can be the cause of the other. — noAxioms

I'm replying to you today because of something you posted earlier. There is no ambiguity here. Same with you. You replied to one of my prior responses. We don't have any ambiguity here. We're not describing two states that aren't in contact with one another.

I'm not talking about a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa is the cause of our conversation today. I've mentioned in the OP "causal chains". Meaning more than one. Meaning, different chains of causality. There is no claim that everything interacts with everything and everything is the cause of everything else. You need to directly show how your argument applies to the OP.

If you set up two separate causal chains and state, "They don't have any relation to each other," its irrelevant to the OP. "I have a state Y. Does it have an X, or not? What is the logical result in any chain of causality?" Again, I'm not seeing the connection between the OP and your arguments.

The scenario shows how two events, say months apart but in the same approximate location, are nevertheless both simultaneous to this one event on Earth (the event of my greeting my friend in passing). There cannot be two present moments a month apart in Andromeda, so it is contradictory if both my friend and I are correct about what’s going on over there currently. — noAxioms

In the OP I would simply take the entire state of Andromeda and Earth and ask, "What caused this?" Again, I'm failing to see how these criticisms apply to the OP. What would help is if you use the OP's argument, and show how it cannot apply with these interpretations. That's the main problem with your criticisms. I'm trying to show you why they don't apply to the OP, but you're not using the logic of the OP to explain why they do. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you need to use examples that apply, not vague assertions.

It was brought up to a different post of yours in this topic. It is relevant to the OP, because according to A theory, the universe itself, or at least the initial state, needs to be caused, which is the something-from-nothing connundrum. What caused the rules by which uncaused events are legal in the first place? — noAxioms

You need to re-read the OP then. I do not state the universe needs to be caused. Please cite in the OP the point you are criticizing. I'm getting more and more in our conversation that you don't understand the argument. Prior to doing more criticism, perhaps seek clarification as to what the argument is stating first. I believe you're using a straw man here without realizing it.

— noAxioms
Reading up on B theory again, I did not see how B theory ignored parts of spacetime.
— Philosophim
It doesn’t. It’s A theory that cannot handle this problem. That’s why I posted it when you asked me why B is better.[/quote]

Ok, how does this apply to the OP? And this time, please cite the OP itself. More and more as we're chatting, I'm realizing you don't understand the OP. I keep trying to bring you back to making the point about the OP. At this point, please explicitly cite the sections, or I think we're going to keep talking past each other.

It doesn’t. It’s A theory that cannot handle this problem. That’s why I posted it when you asked me why B is better. — noAxioms

Again, where in my OP am I explicitly demanding A theory? This is the unintentional straw man. I've already told you several times I don't care if you use A or B theory, because it doesn't matter. If it does matter, you need to show me how with citations at this point.

All the prior cause did was change the arrangement of the coins over time. I don’t consider that a change to anything’s existence
— noAxioms
I do. That is a change in spatial location. When one state is different from the next, that is change.
— Philosophim
I’d have said change over time, but that’s not the point. — noAxioms

Its not important what you would have said, its important what I've said right? You have to first understand the OP before you can criticize it.

If you read the comment, it was non-existence to existence that I was discussing. Then again, it very much depends on one’s definition of ‘exists’, which in turn is dependent on ones interpretation of time. So the time discussion really turns out to be relevant.

B-theory says the coin-smiley exists. The rearrangement of the coins over time doesn’t affect that at all since all events (coins in smiley pattern, coins in different pattern) all exist equally. So the change over time was caused, but the existence wasn’t affected. And that’s not even using my relational definition of ‘exists’. — noAxioms

This was mostly nonsense to me and shows no understanding of the OP. Look, there's a difference between presenting alternative definitions and view points to the OP, and just presenting alternative view points that don't clearly show how they criticize the OP, and yet you use them to criticize what you think the OP is saying. I think at this point we've gone back and forth enough, that you don't understand the OP. I'm the guy who wrote it, so I'm a fairly good authority on it. :)

Please use the OP to cite your issues directly. No more abstracts, because you either don't understand the OP, or I don't understand the criticism against the OP, because you're not being specific. Once you do that, I think we'll be able to get a resolution on this discussion.

If you have time, you have a prior state, a current state, and a potential future state, which is in line with the OP. — Philosophim

Non-sequitur.
If you have time, some of the events can be ordered (X is before Y), but that doesn’t make any one of them ‘current’. The B view does not make any reference to the present since it denies any meaning of the concept.
I say ‘some of’ because any pair of events that are separated in a space-like manner are ambiguously ordered and neither can be the cause of the other if locality true.

If I posted a B series interpretation, this topic wouldn't have reached many people. That's not the goal here.

It’s actually quite easy to word your OP concept using B-series language, without obscuring its meaning.

There is no claim that everything interacts with everything and everything is the cause of everything else.

I didn’t say there was, but had I not put that clause in there, my statement would have been wrong, and I don’t like making wrong statements.

You need to directly show how your argument applies to the OP.

From your OP then”

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.

This seem to allow only infinite regress, causal-turtles all the way down. There cannot be a first cause of existence (your definition) since existence would be the effect, meaning that which caused it was something that didn’t exist, being prior to existence. And the eternal (cyclic say) models of the universe make different empirical predictions than those we see.

My view gets around this by not asserting your statement above, by not making the assumptions it implicitly makes.
There’s another thread going on (in the religious section of all places) about Rasmussen’s paradox. The OP shows Rasmussen’s argument, which proceed much along the same lines as I do.

I do not state the universe needs to be caused.

But that’s how I read the above quote. Either the universe has a prior cause for its existence, or there is one first cause of existence, which sounds like the same thing: existence being caused, but perhaps that cause is not ‘prior’.

And here I agreed at least that I’m fine with an initial state. Plenty of temporal structures have them.

Again, where in my OP am I explicitly demanding A theory?

You explicitly asked my to give reasons why B seemed better to me, and I answered. Conversation would be impossible if nobody could address any subsequent post of yours because it wasn’t posted in the OP.

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.
This seem to allow only infinite regress, causal-turtles all the way down. There cannot be a first cause of existence (your definition) since existence would be the effect, meaning that which caused it was something that didn’t exist, being prior to existence. And the eternal (cyclic say) models of the universe make different empirical predictions than those we see. — noAxioms

Ok, this is good. But what about the second part of the sentence, "Or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows". We had this exchange here:

I do not state the universe needs to be caused.
But that’s how I read the above quote. Either the universe has a prior cause for its existence, or there is one first cause of existence, which sounds like the same thing: existence being caused, but perhaps that cause is not ‘prior’. — noAxioms

I think you misunderstand. A first cause means there is an existence which can cause others, but has no cause itself. That is why it is a "first cause". Also, don't forget the very important part, "at least one". Not "only one". I've had quite a few people miss that.

Further, this is not an argument about "the formation of the universe". The argument is that in any chain of causality, a first cause is logically necessary. For all I know, the formation of the universe happened over several first causes. I have no clue. I don't pretend to even make a claim. If anything, this is just a claim of what ultimately results if we are to examine the principal of sufficient reason.

In the end, I basically conclude that there cannot logically be an infinite regress of causality. That's really it.

Re-read the argument in its entirety again please.

I think you misunderstand. A first cause means there is an existence which can cause others, but has no cause itself. — Philosophim

You need to clarify your terminology. You defined ‘exists’ as something an object does, or rather something that is done to it. A smiley exists because something caused the coins to be arranged in a recognizable pattern, and it ceases to exist later when the coins are returned to a purse.
Existence on the other hand typically refers to ‘all of reality’. I’m not sure how you distinguish ‘existence’ and ‘universe’ from each other. Maybe you have totally different definitions of these things than what I’m guessing.
Your statement above (coupled with others) seems to imply that ‘existence’, reality, or something at least, suddenly was, uncaused, when before that there wasn’t existence, reality, or anything. Well, there was time at least, but not sure how time is in any way meaningful without a reality to change.
You say ‘there is an existence’, like this first cause thing still is around, and didn’t disappear like all the other causes. A storm causes my lawn to get watered, but later the lawn is wet and the storm is gone, no longer existing, at least not over my lawn. But your wording says that there is (not was) an existence that can cause (not caused) others. So you’re obviously defining ‘existence’ in a different way than ‘exists’, which is great, but I’m hoping I got close to the mark when guessing at your definition.

Mind you, I’m trying to keep any opinion of alternate views out of this for now, since I’m pretty obviously not understanding what you’re trying to convey.

Also, don't forget the very important part, "at least one".

A bunch happen at the same time, or a bunch of them happen after a while, but with only one earliest one? You seem to define ‘first cause’ as any event lacking a direct cause, and not ‘comes earlier than the others’.

Further, this is not an argument about "the formation of the universe". The argument is that in any chain of causality, a first cause is logically necessary.

There are circular solutions, so this logic doesn’t follow. The infinite regress is also a valid solution, but you conclude otherwise. Hence 180’s trivial retort (first reply) about the first integer. Yes, they can be counted, but they can’t be counted in order.

Existence on the other hand typically refers to ‘all of reality’. I’m not sure how you distinguish ‘existence’ and ‘universe’ from each other. Maybe you have totally different definitions of these things than what I’m guessing. — noAxioms

So "existence" is generally seen as "everything". "An" existence is a snapshot identity within. An atom is "an existence", but is part of "all existence". In the OP I am referencing Y as "an existence".

Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality. — Philosophim

Is the above quote what you were asking to define existence for? In the future, try to cite your questions of vocabulary using the OP. This will help me ensure I understand where you are coming from.

Your statement above (coupled with others) seems to imply that ‘existence’, reality, or something at least, suddenly was, uncaused, when before that there wasn’t existence, reality, or anything. — noAxioms

Can you coach this in terms of points 1, 2 and 3 in the OP? Where is this implication coming from in those steps? Or is it elsewhere in the OP?

You say ‘there is an existence’, like this first cause thing still is around, and didn’t disappear like all the other causes. — noAxioms

Where do I say that in the OP? I'm just looking at the chain of causality. I don't believe I ever insinuated the first cause needed to continue to exist.

You seem to define ‘first cause’ as any event lacking a direct cause, and not ‘comes earlier than the others’. — noAxioms

Correct.

Also, don't forget the very important part, "at least one".
A bunch happen at the same time, or a bunch of them happen after a while, but with only one earliest one? — noAxioms

Could be any of them. I don't claim any one limitation in the OP.

Further, this is not an argument about "the formation of the universe". The argument is that in any chain of causality, a first cause is logically necessary.
There are circular solutions, so this logic doesn’t follow. The infinite regress is also a valid solution, but you conclude otherwise. — noAxioms

Please point out where in the OP the there is a circular solution. I'm not sure what you mean by the infinite regress was a valid solution, but I conclude otherwise. Where in the OP did I do that? Please site the specific sentences.

Hence 180’s trivial retort (first reply) about the first integer. Yes, they can be counted, but they can’t be counted in order. — noAxioms

I love 180 as a poster. I find him generally witty, knowledgeable, and was thrilled to have him in my thread. He also stuck to a straw man despite my repeated attempts to get him to cite the actual argument instead of what he had invented in his own mind. I only note this, because a person of his learning and intellect should have known better, and I have rarely been more disappointed in a person. Not a good reference to use in this thread.

The problem is, I have a lot of people who come in here thinking they know the argument by glancing at it, but don't actually understand it. I don't mind that as long as they are willing to look at it again, ask follow ups, and try to understand it once I point out they don't have it quite right. If you're curious about a good poster to cite, look up Bob Ross's responses and my conversation with him in this thread. If I remember correctly, I conceded to him on his points. It might give you a better understanding of the OP.

"It just is." — Philosophim

That's what a certain subgroup of scientists would say. Those who're in the business of description of nature. However, I believe there are some who aren't happy just reporting on how nature behaves. They wanna explain, answer why questions and for them the statement "It just is" is a beginning, not an end (of science).

"It just is."
— Philosophim

That's what a certain subgroup of scientists would say. Those who're in the business of description of nature. However, I believe there are some who aren't happy just reporting on how nature behaves. They wanna explain, answer why questions and for them the statement "It just is" is a beginning, not the end of science. — Agent Smith

Understandable. I note in later discussions that actually showing that a specific existence is self-explained would be nearly impossible. A self-explained entity has no rules for its existence, so there is nothing preventing a self-explained existence from appearing, that our physics or notion of causality would imply there was something prior. For example, the universe could have snapped into existence 5 seconds ago, but its organization and structure would lead us to believe it had existed for a vastly longer time.

So what is its use and application then? For one, it may be helpful to understand self-explained existences are logically necessary. There may come a time in exploration where there is no prior causality. And that's ok. There's no need to continue to invent something that caused what appears to be the limits of our understanding within causality.

This is also a replacement for any Kalem type arguments for the existence of God. While technically a God would be logically possible, it is no longer logically necessary to understand origins in existential causality. It can also just as logically be that "the big bang" had no prior explanation for its being besides that it just happened.

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

That is literally saying the same thing twice. :snicker:

There's overlap but the first asserts a causation chain and the second asserts an un-caused foundation.

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

Let's take out the fluff...

1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence.

:snicker:

The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. Whether it's justified or not is different but it has to be one statement for validity.

The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. Whether it's justified or not is different but it has to be one statement for validity. — Shwah

You're saying that...

1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence.

Are not the exact same thing? Okay! :smile: :up:

Let's take out the fluff...

1. All things have...prior cause.
2. There is...first cause of existence. — chiknsld

Don't forget the "or". Its one of two outcomes. Either infinite regression, or finite regression. In that first premise I am simply proposing there are only two outcomes of causality that can be concluded. This premise in no way indicates an assertion or conclusion as to which is true. If you're simply reading the first premise and judging the entire argument, you don't understand the argument.

The "or" logical connective is meant to make sure that only one condition has to be met for anything. It's to prevent infinite regression. — Shwah

No, this is not meant to prevent infinite regression. It is stating infinite regression is one possibility. Finite regression is another possibility. The "or", is the connector demonstrating that one or the other must exist.

I missed the universal quantifier at the beginning. I think it's better written with an existential quantifier to be an actual "or".

Edit: you postulate variables it looks like but you can't check them with "1." because it uses a universal quantifier. To be able to check them with "1." you need it to be able to take in "X", "Y", "Z".

All things in motion and processes must have gotten a kick. The kicker can be non-directional in time. The omnipresent and ever present virtual particles constitute the kicker without time direction with the power to kick of thermo-time. The creation of eternal space and time requires a different kicker which must be divine in nature. An unknowable causal power.

The creation of eternal space and time requires a different kicker which must be divine in nature. An unknowable causal power. — EugeneW

No, the OP makes no claims to this. If anything is definitely negates the necessity of a divine being.

I missed the universal quantifier at the beginning. I think it's better written with an existential quantifier to be an actual "or".

Edit: you postulate variables it looks like but you can't check them with "1." because it uses a universal quantifier. To be able to check them with "1." you need it to be able to take in "X", "Y", "Z". — Shwah

Could you clarify this please? I don't understand what you're saying here.

No, the OP makes no claims to this. If anything is definitely negates the necessity of a divine being — Philosophim

What else kicked it in being, even if eternal?

Ahh, very interesting.

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.

So, you are saying that (don't mind my rewording of the 2 premises)...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is one or more first causes from which a chain of events follows.

Or more precisely...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is a first cause from which a chain of events follows.

I'm just doing this to help me figure out what you are saying more clearly...

"...All things have a prior cause for their existence..."

Meaning that there is an infinite regression of cause and effect in the universe (there never was a beginning)?

Sorry it's just a very strange way of saying that there simply is no beginning :snicker: (please correct me if I am wrong).

"...there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows."

Okay, so the universe has a beginning (there is no infinite regression of cause and effect)?

It sounds like your 2 premises are: Either the universe has a beginning or the universe does not have a beginning.

Sorry for my simple way of thinking, but I just can't understand how you're complicating two such easy premises.

Let me show you how I would make the premises for your argument:

1. The universe has a beginning.
2. The universe does not have a beginning.

:snicker:

Your goal is to argue from a basic premise to a conclusion where "1." randomly states what should be the penultimate point but then discards it.
If you instead argue, for any object that exists (however defined), it has a prior cause or it does not (and if it does not then it is a foundation - can be a proposition with justifications if this is hinged on too much for people).
Then you can insert any trivial object x through that (it must be trivial otherwise you need a new proposition just so long as they accept it).

I suspect a large amount of the work done is justifying "prior cause". Whichever argument justifies that (from a basic premise) should be prior.
In any case, because your work is written that way, you cover a lot of ground twice and inefficiently work with what you've been given. You can really write that all in one line (∃x(Px OR !Px & Fx) - there exists x such that it has a prior cause and if not then it is the first cause).

Edit: Notice x or !x is trivially true and valid no matter what proposition for classical logic but the & adds something so a separate proposition is necessary where you could write Px > !Fx, ∃x(Px OR !Px) as two lines.

Okay, so the universe has a beginning (there is no infinite regression of cause and effect)? — chiknsld

There is an infinite regression and progression of beginnings. The current universe, by physical necessity (thermodynamics) has a beginning of thermodynamic time. The end of this universe, when accelerated away to infinity, is the trigger of a new inflation at the singularity, after which it all starts again. Eternally. But we wont experience boredom like the gods, which was the reason for their creation. They didn't take the human gods into account. Their panto babbles led mankind and the planet astray.

So, you are saying that (don't mind my rewording of the 2 premises)...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is one or more first causes from which a chain of events follows.

Or more precisely...

1. All things have a prior cause.
2. There is a first cause from which a chain of events follows. — chiknsld

No. I am stating any one thing either has a prior cause for its existence, or it does not. Let me simplify it further.

Premise:

A. Every piece of existence can be explained by prior causality OR (Don't forget the or!)
B. There is at least one existence that has no prior causality for its existence, it simply is.

Sorry it's just a very strange way of saying that there simply is no beginning :snicker: (please correct me if I am wrong). — chiknsld

I think the problem is you are taking an 'or' premise as a conclusion. Did you read the rest of the steps and the actual conclusion? If you're just reading the first premise, you're not going to understand anything.

I'm genuinely still unsure what you're trying to say with your reply. I did understand this last part.

In any case, because your work is written that way, you cover a lot of ground twice and inefficiently work with what you've been given. You can really write that all in one line (∃x(Px OR !Px & Fx) - there exists x such that it has a prior cause and if not then it is the first cause). — Shwah

If you are talking about the first premise being written in that logical format, yes. If you are talking about the conclusion, no, that's not what I conclude.

There is at least one existence that has no prior causality for its existence, it simply is — Philosophim

Guess that "depends on the definition of is." :smirk:

Guess that "depends on the definition of is." :smirk: — jgill

In this case, it would be something that exists without prior causality.

Ahhh, yes blame it on my old age. I was breaking up one premise into 2 premises. I'm too used to old college days of at least 2 premises followed by a conclusion.

So, your first premise (an "or" statement) as I was trying to say, can be written as such:

1. Either the universe has a beginning or the universe does not have a beginning.

Okay, very well I can completely agree with that. :)

self-explained existences are logically necessary. There may come a time in exploration where there is no prior causality. And that's ok. There's no need to continue to invent something that caused what appears to be the limits of our understanding within causality. — Philosophim

You hit the nail on the head. A few points:

1. Explanation (for existence) = Cause (for existence).

2. A first cause has to be self-caused unless you reject the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). The catch is: in all cases observed so far, the cause exists before the effect. If so, how can something be self-caused? It must exist before it exists!? :chin:

The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. It is the end of our understanding. — Sean Carroll