Quite so. It's perhaps worth noting that the same applies to what happens after the heat death of the universe. — Ludwig V

The supposed "heat death" is an interesting issue. The heat death is the result of entropy which is the natural effect of the passage of time. "Entropy" refers to energy which is unavailable to the system, but cannot be shown to have escaped the system. So by the rules of the conservation law, that energy must still be within the system somehow, only not available to the system.

This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy".

This is very similar to the problem I exposed with Philosophim's "first cause". There must be something prior to the first "cause", but it cannot be a "cause" by the definition which Philosophim says we must adhere to. Thus my suggestion of a different type of "cause" (which is analogous to a different type of "energy" produced by entropy, a type of energy inconsistent with the definition of energy).

Since Philosophim insists that we cannot use "cause" in this way, we have to look at "the reason" for the first cause. So this is analogous to "the reason" for entropy, which is a violation to the absoluteness, or ideality of conservation of energy, in a way similar to "the reason" for the first cause being a violation to the absoluteness or ideality of "the first cause".

There must be something prior to the first "cause..." — Metaphysician Undercover

Please articulate an argument supporting this premise.

Although causal chains seem to be aligned with a passage of time for each link, one has to be cautious about saying "first tick" or something similar. Then you move into relativity of time measurements and if one makes them smaller and smaller the dynamical system described by the chain tends to a continuous process, with associated philosophical interpretations. — jgill

Absolutely. The reason I say "time tick" is because if I said seconds, then we could divide into milliseconds, then...you get it. A first cause exists upon its formation, then enters into causality through time and how its original self influences it from them on.

Because there is no prior cause for a first cause, there is no limitation on what a first cause could be.
— Philosophim

Regarding no limitation, what about the selfhood of the first cause? If selfhood establishes a boundary between self and other, and the first cause is a self, then: a) it's limited by the boundaries of its selfhood; b) the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr

To be clear, there is no limitation upon what can be incepted. Once a first cause exists, it is bound to causation by what it is. For example, lets say a hydrogen atom appeared as a first cause. As soon as it exits, it is a hydrogen atom. Its limited by its parts and the rules of itself.

So then:

a) it's limited by the boundaries of its selfhood; — ucarr

Correct

b) the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr

I don't think that's quite it. The network of its continued self existence is bound by its formation. Its formation is a first cause only. After that, it is in a temporal and state chain of causality for every tick of time.

You're saying a particular first cause can have a non-causal relationship with other things prior to it? — ucarr

No. I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. After a first cause exists, it enters into causality with everything it can interact with. So again, something prior could exist, but if none of what exists causes a new existence, that new existence is a first cause. As an example we could have a photon appear in our universe right now uncaused by anything that exists.

Moreover, you're saying the attribute of first cause generally allows for a multiplicity of independent first causes temporally sequenced across a positive interval of time? — ucarr

Correct. There can be no limitation as to how or why a first cause could come to be.

Does this not imply that a particular first cause has a bounded domain of first causal influence upon a sub-set of the totality of existing things? — ucarr

If you mean that when a first cause appears, it is bound by what it is and then is bound by the natural consequences of its specific interactions with other existences, yes. Does this mean that two chains of causation, each with a first cause, cannot intertwine somewhere over time? No. I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. The causality chains are also each one way.

Is this not a description of everyday causes such as: a) a virus causes pneumonia; b) a cloud saturated with water causes rain? — ucarr

No. What you and many other people are accidently doing is confusing an origin with a first cause. An origin is a start for measurement. On a X/Y graph, the common origin is 0,0. However, we can also make the origin 50,50. Does that mean 0,0, suddenly does not exist? No. So imagine a line that represents a finite chain that starts at 1,2. We could do an origin at 0,0, but it would be pointless because there's nothing there. We could follow the line and make the origin at 10,15. Does that mean that the start of the line isn't at 1,2 No, its still there no matter where we create or origin, or pick any point in the causality line as a starting point for our measurements and discussion.

Meaning, I can say, "What caused a fire in the forest? It was a lightning bolt". And if that's all we care about, we end the inquiry. Does that mean the lightning bolt is a first cause? No, that's just an origin on the chain and we need no more explanation. There is of course a much larger chain. "What caused the lightning? What caused the cause of the lightning?" And so on. A first cause is when there is a point in which there is no prior cause. It is irrelevant whether we measure it or realize it. And, as the argument shows, its logically necessary that there eventually be at least one.

Am I mistaken in my understanding of your purpose as being an examination of the first cause of all existing things, including existence itself? — ucarr

Yes, I think by now what I'm stating is that there is at least one first cause. But there could be several.

If first cause passes through time from its first tick to its second tick, time is co-equal with it. — ucarr

A first cause cannot pass through time. A first cause is an inception event. Every time tick afterward is a causal chain that necessarily traces to the inception event.

Further, there is nothing that forbids one thing existing in isolation in theory.
— Philosophim

I'm inclined to think the conservation laws forbid the total isolation of a thing. — ucarr

Yes, if a first cause appears that follows conservation laws. But there is no prior cause which would prevent a first cause from appearing that does not follow conservation laws. It doesn't mean such a thing has happened, I'm just noting there is nothing logical that I can see that would forbid such a first cause from happening.

Alright, I think I addressed everything that didn't repeat! I love your intelligent and pointed approach Ucarr!

No. What you and many other people are accidently doing is confusing an origin with a first cause. An origin is a start for measurement. On a X/Y graph, the common origin is 0,0. However, we can also make the origin 50,50. Does that mean 0,0, suddenly does not exist? No. So imagine a line that represents a finite chain that starts at 1,2. We could do an origin at 0,0, but it would be pointless because there's nothing there. We could follow the line and make the origin at 10,15. — Philosophim

I had thought that it must be possible to "extend" our time-line beyond the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. If we treat "now" as the origin of the line. That's no different from treating the year Christ was born as the origin and extending it back from there.
The catch is that if time is not happening, there is no way of knowing how far back one is, or how long one has been there, as it were. The Big Bang is the origin of change and without change, there is no way of measuring time. It's not as if we can put a clock in our pocket before we go.

If you mean that when a first cause appears, it is bound by what it is and then is bound by the natural consequences of its specific interactions with other existences, yes. — Philosophim

I'm not at all sure that this really makes sense. If there are other existences, then the question arises what caused them? If that question has an answer, then the first cause wasn't the first.
I guess you might be thinking of some distinction like the differences that some people identify by talking about causes and conditions. The cause of the explosion is the spark, the molecular structure of the explosive is (part of) the conditions. But that doesn't apply to a first cause like the Big Bang, which is the cause and origin of all the physical things in our universe. Or perhaps it does?

So by the rules of the conservation law, that energy must still be within the system somehow, only not available to the system. — Metaphysician Undercover

A pretty puzzle indeed. So the conclusion must be that something continues to exist after the heat death, even though time and space no longer exist. I did notice that heat death did not say that the temperature must be zero, only that temperature differences would be ironed out.
No doubt that unavailable energy is hanging around waiting to be released in another Big Bang. That would not be an unsatisfying solution.
Naive question. Am I not right that, strictly speaking energy is work done - the capacity to do work is called "potential energy", isn't it? I can see why unavailable energy can't be called potential energy, but it sounds as if we need a concept like the potential for potential energy. Awkward.
On the other hand, there is so much mystery about in the form of anti-matter and dark energy, that perhaps we should just wait for someone to find all that unavailable energy and release it - hopefully not all at once.

I have noted many times why this must be, but it might have been missed. First, I'm using 'reason' as an explanation. "Why is this a first cause?" Reason: Because it has no prior cause which caused it. Pretty simple.
— Philosophim

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The question is not "why is this a first cause" because you have not identified a particular "concrete" cause which you claim is a first cause, and asking why is this a first cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've given several examples. All I'm asking is for you to do the same. I'm not asking for proof that such a thing exists, just give me a possible example of something which makes logical sense that could exist. In my mind you're dodging the issue here.

We cannot simply assume that there is nothing prior to the first cause because that is unjustified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Metaphysician...I've been kind so far and given you as much benefit of the doubt I can. This is stupid. You are better than this. Go to anyone else besides me and say that sentence and watch their confused looks. This is why I keep asking you for examples. If you cannot show how such a statement can logically exist I'm going to assume you're trolling or you are arguing in bad faith. Work on this and give me something good to think about please.

Since you refused to accept conventional philosophy concerning different types of causation, I've found that I have to approach your argument from the distinction you've made between "cause" and "reason". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's how a philosophical discussion works. The OP sets up clear definitions and makes logical conclusions from it. You can ask for definition clarification, which I have answered. You can critique the conclusion from those definitions, which I have answered. You can even introduce different definitions into the discussion and see if they work within the scope of the argument. This is not about me refusing anything. Please contain your frustration and keep personal accusations out of this.

Look, if there's no prior cause for something, there's no prior reason for something either.
— Philosophim

That is unjustified. To make that claim, you need to demonstrate how all reasons are necessarily causes. — Metaphysician Undercover

What? No. If there's no prior cause, then there is nothing prior which caused a first cause to exist. If there is nothing prior to cause something, there is no prior reason for the existence of it either. Now we can reason about the existent thing. But we cannot say there is a prior reason, as there is nothing prior that caused it. Please demonstrate a situation in which there is no prior cause for something, yet there is a prior, and by this I mean temporal, reason for it.

Furthermore, you have no premise which allows you to conclude that the reason for the first cause is not prior to the first cause, because you have not properly established the reason for the first cause. All you've said is that the reason for the first cause is that there is no prior cause. But that's only the reason why it is "first", it is not the reason why it is "cause". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll try explaining again. Lets take an example of a photon that appears without prior cause. Now, once it exists, it is bound by causality by what it is. Meaning it can't suddenly act like an atom, because it is a photon. It can't interact with other things as an elephant suddenly, because it is a photon. It is the first cause in a causality chain only because nothing caused it to exist. But its continued existence begins a causal chain with whatever happens at the next time tick of its existence.

I don't know what you're talking about here. You've excluded the possibility of a prior reason being the cause of the first cause through definition. Therefore a prior reason of the first cause must necessarily be something other than a cause, and what you ask is nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Great, we agree then. Thus you can't have a prior reason if there is no prior cause. Lets stop going over this.

A concrete example of the prior reason for a first cause is not required until you produce a concrete example of a first cause. I tried giving you concrete examples of first causes already, with free will acts, but you ended up rejecting them because they refuted your argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have given several examples of potential first causes and how they would work. You gave me examples of free will and claimed they were first causes. I noted they could not fit the definition of first causes and that's when you lost your cool. Its obvious to me your motivation for being against my definitions is you want free will to be a first cause. But you realized quickly that if my arguments about what a first cause is, and its logical consequences are true, then you couldn't have what you wanted.

Give me an example.
— Philosophim

Example of what? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are stalling and trying to avoid it because you know you can't give one. Prove me wrong and give me one.

As said above, "it simply exists" does not qualify as an explanation. So if you are using "reason" as synonymous with "explanation", you'll have to do better. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does when there is no prior cause.

I don't dispute your argument about "there necessarily must be a first cause", I dispute the further unjustified conclusion you make, that the first cause cannot have a prior reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, so far you don't like the conclusion, but I haven't seen any examples or reasonable logic to show this point. If you do not attempt to do so in your next reply I will be moving on.

I've already demonstrated that. How quickly you forget. A "first cause" is "first" in relation to a specific chain. There may be a multitude of different chains. The "first" of one chain may be prior in time to the "first" of another chain. Therefore the assertion "there can be no cause prior to a first cause" is illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover

There can be no prior cause that causes a first cause. Not that there cannot be other first causes and chains of causality from those first causes. Those other chains obviously do not cause other first causes. This is basic.

As I've explained to you already. Your conception of "first cause" is a product of an unnecessarily restrictive definition of "cause", one which does not provide for all the things which are commonly, in philosophy, known as causes. Therefore it really is an opinion, your opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, you do understand that the argument I've presented works. You have not demonstrated it is unnecessarily restrictive. That's a pretty poor way of just saying, "Yes, your argument is consistent with your specific definitions." Its not an opinion, that's philosophy. Definitions, logic, conclusion. Please give some examples and focus more on the argument then on "me" as the problem in your next reply please.

:up: Something circular going on here. It's a feeling I have had for this entire thread. — jgill

Prove that something is circular. Your opinions on the matter don't make them correct.

So philosophim refers back to causation, saying the reason for the first cause is the first cause itself, and that produces the vicious circle. But a vicious circle does not constitute a reason or explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

We've already gone over this, but I'll say it again if it was missed. If there is no prior cause, there is no prior reason. There is no unspecified temporal point. You ignore the fact that I conjoin 'prior reason' as different from "a reason". A first cause is that which has no prior cause for its existence. I note: " What is the reason why this infinitely regressive chain of causality exists? There is no prior cause for it, it simply is." There isn't a prior reason for its existence, I've simply noted the reason for its existence as an explanation. If it helps, change the sentence to, "What is the cause of this infinitely regressive chain of causalities existence? There is no prior cause for it, it simply is."

But random is inconsistent with "reason". So philosophim refers back to causation, saying the reason for the first cause is the first cause itself, and that produces the vicious circle. But a vicious circle does not constitute a reason or explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Random is not inconsistent with an explanation, I'm not sure what you're saying here. And my point is not circular. Its simply a result of what a first cause is. Circular would be something like, "The bible says God exists, and we know the bible is true because God says it is." We're obviously leaving out that we first have to know each is true, and that requires something outside of the reference to each other. I am not doing this to my awareness.

My difficulty here is that you seem to be treating "existence" as if it were a property of the things that exist. — Ludwig V

Existence is a set of all things that exist.

If that's right, pointing to existence as a cause of anything is incomprehensible. — Ludwig V

I note that its a set of existence. So for example I can say, "What causes rain?" Or, "What causes water?"

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it qualifying as an non-causal explanation of something, but it can hardly explain why something exists (circularity). — Ludwig V

If we go up the causal chain, it is logically necessary that there be a first cause. The logical conclusion from there being a first cause is that there can be no prior cause for its existence, therefore there is no reason for its existence besides the fact that it exists. That's the full explanation. I don't get what you're missing here, can you try to drill into it a little more?

I had thought that it must be possible to "extend" our time-line beyond the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. If we treat "now" as the origin of the line. That's no different from treating the year Christ was born as the origin and extending it back from there. — Ludwig V

Sure, there is nothing wrong with treating the big bang as an origin. "This is as far back as we can currently go in terms of causality." This is not the same as saying, "We have proven that the big bang is a first cause, and there cannot be anything else which caused it to exist."

I'm not at all sure that this really makes sense. If there are other existences, then the question arises what caused them? If that question has an answer, then the first cause wasn't the first. — Ludwig V

The answer is there was at least one first cause that resulted in the rest of what exists. Just use the example of the big bang as if it were the first cause. If there was nothing that caused the big bang, that's it.

The cause of the explosion is the spark, the molecular structure of the explosive is (part of) the conditions. But that doesn't apply to a first cause like the Big Bang, which is the cause and origin of all the physical things in our universe. Or perhaps it does? — Ludwig V

If the big bang is a proven first cause, then it does. Can I explain the exact laws of how the big bang caused everything to appear from it? No. But that's not the point. The point is that there is no prior cause which made the Big Bang. It just happened.

Existence is a set of all things that exist. — Philosophim

Ah, well, that's different.

I even understand you when you say:-

The logical conclusion from there being a first cause is that there can be no prior cause for its existence, therefore there is no reason for its existence, therefore there is no reason for its existence, — Philosophim

But I don't understand you at all when you say

besides the fact that it exists. — Philosophim

. Why don't you just say "therefore there is no reason (or cause) for its existence"? I'm not saying there can't be a reason for its existence, just that there may not be one.

Not being a philosopher what I am getting here includes the following:

A causal chain is either finite or infinite.
If it is finite it has a first cause.
If it is infinite its first cause is being an element of the set of all things that exist.

The subtleties seem more word banters than substance. But, I'm out of my pay grade here.

But I don't understand you at all when you say
besides the fact that it exists.
— Philosophim
. Why don't you just say "therefore there is no reason (or cause) for its existence"? I'm not saying there can't be a reason for its existence, just that there may not be one. — Ludwig V

I say there can be no prior cause, and thus no prior reason. But reason is sometimes used as a term of explanation. Depending on a person's use of reason, they can state there is a reason, and that reason is "There is no prior cause". As I mentioned earlier, I don't think its the word "cause" that's giving people trouble, its the word "reason". Ironically it turns out "reason" is not a very reasonable word to use because it has multiple meanings. :)

...there is no limitation upon what can be incepted. — Philosophim

You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity?

lets say a hydrogen atom appeared as a first cause. As soon as it exits, it is a hydrogen atom. Its limited by its parts and the rules of itself. — Philosophim

You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?

the necessary network of self/other, upon which first cause depends for its existence as a self, prevents the solitary, temporal primacy of that said self. — ucarr

I don't think that's quite it. The network of its continued self existence is bound by its formation. — Philosophim

Your saying inception can incept a first cause that possesses a boundary of selfhood beyond which there is no otherness? Moreover, you're saying the boundary of selfhood is simultaneously not a boundary since there is no otherness?

After a first cause exists, it enters into causality with everything it can interact with. — Philosophim

I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim

With the above two quotes you're saying each family of causation runs parallel with all other families of causation? Moreover, you're saying there's no general causation that applies to all causal sequences?

I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying pre-existing causal chains suggesting general causality predating a new first cause have no pertinence to a new first cause? Moreover, you're saying each new first cause requires a new study of causation starting from scratch?

You're saying a first cause can enter into causality in spite of it having no cause?

You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause?

...something prior could exist, but if none of what exists causes a new existence, that new existence is a first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying a new causeless existence, post-dating prior existences with causes, nonetheless has no interaction with general causation? Moreover, you're saying each new causeless existence initiates a new family of causation unlike any pre-existing causation?

I'm staying there can be no prior cause which influences the inception of the first cause. — Philosophim

A first cause is when there is a point in which there is no prior cause. It is irrelevant whether we measure it or realize it. And, as the argument shows, its logically necessary that there eventually be at least one. — Philosophim

You're saying the number line has an end?

I've described before that with multiple first causes, the intersection of their consequential causality over time ends up being more like a web with the start of a strand representing the first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying being able to intersect doesn't imply merging causal chains share a common first cause?

A first cause cannot pass through time. — Philosophim

You're saying first causation is a phenomenon that transpires with time interval equal to zero?

...there is no prior cause which would prevent a first cause from appearing that does not follow conservation laws. — Philosophim

You're saying first causation is free to violate the conservation laws?

You're saying first causation is axiomatic and thus beyond the domains of science, logic and reason?

...there is no limitation upon what can be incepted.
— Philosophim

You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity? — ucarr

No, I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been.

You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr

No, because then its not a hydrogen atom anymore. A hydrogen atom has a clear definition and limitation of what it can be.

Your saying inception can incept a first cause that possesses a boundary of selfhood beyond which there is no otherness? Moreover, you're saying the boundary of selfhood is simultaneously not a boundary since there is no otherness? — ucarr

By 'otherness' if you mean 'prior causes', then yes to your first question. I don't think that quite fits in for the second. If a hydrogen atom incepts as a first cause, its still a hydrogen atom because that's what it is. If a helium atom incepts as a first cause, its still a helium atom because that's what it is. If a first cause incepts as what appears to be a helium atom, but then turns into a hydrogen atom by the rules of its existence, that's not a helium atom but something else.

With the above two quotes you're saying each family of causation runs parallel with all other families of causation? — ucarr

No, I'm saying the origin of two causal chains cannot cause the origin of each causal chain, as each origin is a first cause. It doesn't mean that a first cause hydrogen atom cannot later bump into a first cause helium atom. Everything past that point would intertwine their causality chains going forward at that point. But this influence is only after the inception of each, and neither can incept the other. If one did, the inceptor of the other would be the first cause of the other. (I am not saying this is what actually happens, all of this is to give a simple example to the abstract)

Moreover, you're saying each new first cause requires a new study of causation starting from scratch? — ucarr

Let pretend we are working backwards up the causal chain for this hydrogen and helium atom. We see the bumped into each other. "So what caused the hydrogen atom to bump into the helium atom" leads off in one way to ultimately arrive at the hydrogen atom's inception. "So what caused the helium atom to bump into the hydrogen atom" leads off in another way to ultimately arrive at the helium atom's inception.

You're saying pre-existing causal chains suggesting general causality predating a new first cause have no pertinence to a new first cause? — ucarr

I'm noting that a first cause cannot have a prior cause for its existence. Meaning if a first cause incepts when there is other existence, that other existence is not the cause of its inception. Of course, claiming "This X" is a first cause that incepted among other existence is going to be difficult to prove. And it must be proven, not merely believed or asserted.

You're saying a first cause can enter into causality in spite of it having no cause? — ucarr

Yes. In fact, if it exists longer than the smallest unit of time, then the second unit of time is caused by rules and forces from the first unit of time. The first unit of time is of course the first cause, and has no prior cause for its existence.

You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause? — ucarr

It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause.

You're saying the number line has an end? — ucarr

No, I'm saying a point in the causal chain is always reached when there is no prior cause for a set of existence.

You're saying being able to intersect doesn't imply merging causal chains share a common first cause? — ucarr

Correct.

You're saying first causation is a phenomenon that transpires with time interval equal to zero? — ucarr

Its more accurate to say the limit to zero.

You're saying first causation is free to violate the conservation laws? — ucarr

Conservation laws are what we observe within what is existent now. There is nothing to prevent something from forming that by its own nature, would also dissolve into nothingness a few seconds from its inception. So if a first cause incepts like matter and energy as we know it, it would of course obey the laws of conservation. But if it incepted itself as something we are unfamiliar with, it of course does not need to follow the laws of conservation.

You're saying first causation is axiomatic and thus beyond the domains of science, logic and reason? — ucarr

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. Predicting when a first cause would appear or be is of course beyond us. But we can think about the consequences of a first cause and see if we can come to some reasonable conclusions. Further, if we were to trace a causal chain all the way up to a first cause, we might be able to prove that it is indeed, a first cause. It would be extremely difficult of course.

Fantastic questions ucarr, please drill in where needed.

Please articulate an argument supporting this premise. — ucarr

A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes.

Naive question. Am I not right that, strictly speaking energy is work done - the capacity to do work is called "potential energy", isn't it? — Ludwig V

I don't think this is quite right. Energy is the capacity to do work. Something active has the capacity to do work, and this energy is kinetic energy. Something inactive, but in a condition to become active has potential energy. So for example, the energy within a fuel source is inactive, therefore potential energy, requiring ignition to become active and become kinetic energy. Each is the potential to do work, in slightly different forms.

I've given several examples. All I'm asking is for you to do the same. I'm not asking for proof that such a thing exists, just give me a possible example of something which makes logical sense that could exist. In my mind you're dodging the issue here. — Philosophim

I've seen you put up some examples of a possible first cause, (like a photon suddenly coming into existence from nothing), but none of your examples make any sense to me. A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, it comes from an electron, it doesn't just come into existence from nothing.

Metaphysician...I've been kind so far and given you as much benefit of the doubt I can. This is stupid. You are better than this. Go to anyone else besides me and say that sentence and watch their confused looks. This is why I keep asking you for examples. If you cannot show how such a statement can logically exist I'm going to assume you're trolling or you are arguing in bad faith. Work on this and give me something good to think about please. — Philosophim

I've told you why it is illogical to say that there is nothing prior to the first cause, it's restated at the very beginning of this post, in my reply to ucarr. Please read it. All you do is make illogical assertions and say that anything other than your illogical assertion is "stupid".

What? No. If there's no prior cause, then there is nothing prior which caused a first cause to exist. If there is nothing prior to cause something, there is no prior reason for the existence of it either. — Philosophim

Reasserting the same invalid conclusion gets you nowhere. That there is no prior cause does not imply that there is no prior reason, because reason is the broader term. Do you not understand this? All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes.

Now we can reason about the existent thing. But we cannot say there is a prior reason, as there is nothing prior that caused it. Please demonstrate a situation in which there is no prior cause for something, yet there is a prior, and by this I mean temporal, reason for it. — Philosophim

And, as I've explained repeatedly, that there is not a cause prior to the first cause does not mean that there is nothing prior to the first cause. This is another instance of invalid reasoning.

I'll try explaining again. Lets take an example of a photon that appears without prior cause. Now, once it exists, it is bound by causality by what it is. Meaning it can't suddenly act like an atom, because it is a photon. It can't interact with other things as an elephant suddenly, because it is a photon. It is the first cause in a causality chain only because nothing caused it to exist. But its continued existence begins a causal chain with whatever happens at the next time tick of its existence. — Philosophim

A photon appearing uncaused makes no sense. Photons are known to have a source. This is how the history of the universe is understood through analysis of cosmic background radiation. If photons could appear from nothing, then the universe could not be understood in this way.

If there is no prior cause, there is no prior reason. — Philosophim

Invalid conclusion repeated again.

Random is not inconsistent with an explanation, — Philosophim

"Random" explains nothing.

there is no limitation upon what can be incepted — Philosophim

You're saying inception equals a supernatural deity? — ucarr

No, I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim

You say, Establishment happens by first cause of the starting point of creation. You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. How does what you say differ from what is said by the rabbi, the priest or the minister?

You're saying inception can incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr

01) No, because then its not a hydrogen atom anymore. A hydrogen atom has a clear definition and limitation of what it can be. — Philosophim

02) I'm saying there's no prior cause for a first cause to exist, so there cannot be any prior limitations as to what a first cause had to be. No prior cause means no restraints as to what could have been. — Philosophim

Given the part of your quote underlined above, why cannot a first cause incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself?

Why is your 02) quote not a contradiction of your 01) quote immediately above?

03) If a hydrogen atom incepts as a first cause, its still a hydrogen atom because that's what it is. — Philosophim

Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom has its own unique definition, then all that is not defined as a hydrogen atom is other?

Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom as first cause is utterly alone, and yet nonetheless can cause things not a hydrogen atom to exist, as its definition of first cause requires, then its ability to cause subsequent inception of all things without limitation is indistinguishable from the creative power of a supernatural deity?

04) Do you agree that if first cause of a hydrogen atom can only cause subsequent hydrogen atoms, then there is no general first cause of all things, only an infinity of first causes of every individual thing?

It doesn't mean that a first cause hydrogen atom cannot later bump into a first cause helium atom. But this influence is only after the inception of each, and neither can incept the other. — Philosophim

Do you agree that your above quote examples you saying first causes are parallel, meaning they don't interact? I repeat this question because the first time I asked you denied their parallelism.

Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)?

You're saying that first cause, having no cause, took possession of its form by means of a non-existent cause? — ucarr

It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause. — Philosophim

Why do you not think the underlined portion of your above quote implies something that simply is is eternal and thus has no inception? I ask this with the understanding inception implies establishment which, in turn, implies a process which is a cause.

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim

How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation?

A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think rain pre-exists a saturated cloud that starts releasing droplets of water?

I don't see your point, rain is the effect, the cloud is the cause. The water though, preexists the cloud.

I've seen you put up some examples of a possible first cause, (like a photon suddenly coming into existence from nothing), but none of your examples make any sense to me. A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, it comes from an electron, it doesn't just come into existence from nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then why not ask me to give a better example? You've been accusing me of being dishonest and besmirching my character instead of asking. It wasn't meant to be a literal example, it was meant to give you a visual of something not being there, then there. The big bang is another typical example. Does that work better?

I've told you why it is illogical to say that there is nothing prior to the first cause, it's restated at the very beginning of this post, in my reply to ucarr. — Metaphysician Undercover

And I've asked you to give a concrete example. I've even noted that I believe you aren't doing it because you know if you do, your point will collapse. That's a challenge anyone who believed in their point would rise to.

A cause, by definition, has an effect on something. The thing which it has an effect on must preexist the cause. In other words, "cause" implies "change", and "change" implies something which changes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, and a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. This does not show that what I stated is wrong. Cause 'implies' change? What does that mean? The definition of cause has been clearly noted, you've recognized it, and this doesn't address the point at all. Also, no example despite my request.

Reasserting the same invalid conclusion gets you nowhere. That there is no prior cause does not imply that there is no prior reason, because reason is the broader term. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already gone over reason and prior reason. I was the one to say these words first to Ludwig, " All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes." So are the words I used to validate my points now invalid?

So I think we're done. I hope our next conversation doesn't have as much animosity from you next time. Especially after we started off so nicely when I said it was good to see you. Remember that? Lets end this on a high note.

You say, Establishment happens by first cause of the starting point of creation. You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. How does what you say differ from what is said by the rabbi, the priest or the minister? — ucarr

Because the rabbi, priest, or minister claims to have knowledge of what the first cause is. I do not. My definition would put the rabbi, priest, or minister on the spot to prove that a God was the first cause because it is entirely unnecessary, and only one possibility out of an infinite plausible alternatives.

Given the part of your quote underlined above, why cannot a first cause incept a hydrogen atom not limited by its parts and the rules of itself? — ucarr

Because I am going by definitions that we ascribe to things. This is a larger conversation about when we should say, "That's a sheep" vs "That's different enough from a sheep that we call it a goat." Assuming that our definitions accurately describe what a hydrogen atom is, my point is that such an existence wouldn't be a hydrogen atom as we define it today. Whatever it is could exist, and to an untrained eye it might look like a hydrogen atom, but it cannot have the same exact composition as a hydrogen atom, or it would not have the special qualities you note.

Why is your 02) quote not a contradiction of your 01) quote immediately above? — ucarr

To clarify perhaps another part you may be implying, once something exists it enters into causality. So when a hydrogen atom exists, that is what it is. Anything that does not exist as a hydrogen atom, is not a hydrogen atom. Once the existence is in reality, its rules are set.

Do you agree that if a hydrogen atom as first cause is utterly alone, and yet nonetheless can cause things not a hydrogen atom to exist, as its definition of first cause requires, then its ability to cause subsequent inception of all things without limitation is indistinguishable from the creative power of a supernatural deity? — ucarr

Lets not use atom, lets use "object" so we avoid the previous confusion. No. For one, a deity is usually ascribed as having consciousness and intent. An object does not. Second, if an object can incept other things, it must do so within the limitation of what it is. Perhaps what it is does allow anything to come forth, but it would all come forth caused by the first cause and thus follow rules. Anything could be a first cause, but when it exists, it is limited by what it is.

Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)? — ucarr

Sorry Ucarr, I did not understand the question. I'm not sure what statements I've made that you're referencing here.

It did not exist by any prior cause. It has no intention or possession, as that would be prior to its inception. It simply is, no prior cause.
— Philosophim

Why do you not think the underlined portion of your above quote implies something that simply is is eternal and thus has no inception? I ask this with the understanding inception implies establishment which, in turn, implies a process which is a cause. — ucarr

It does not need to be eternal. A first cause has the potential of happening five seconds from now. A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal.

I'm just using inception as another term for "started to exist". A first cause does not need a prior process to be, it simply begins to exist.

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason.
— Philosophim

How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation? — ucarr

I think this question is too broad and you'll need to focus on something specific. What are you referencing in particular that you believe is outside of explanation?

Again, very pointed questions Ucarr. Keep going until you are satisified.

This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover

The hypothetical Big Bang was an energetic outburst, but from what or where? And the projected Heat Death is the end of that cosmic energetic cycle. In a philosophical sense, the First Cause of the "Bang" was Aristotelian Potential which actualized into the Causal forces of Nature. But, like a run-down cell phone battery, the original potential fades back into the chaos of entropy, which no longer has the "ability" to cause Change. But the Potential for future energy remains in the chemistry of the battery, which only needs re-formatting to again produce useful Energy.

However, if the conservation law is correct, the cosmic battery should be rechargeable. A recent discovery of physics is that active Energy is merely one Form of Causal Power. It can also transform into Mass/Matter, and into the Entropy of Information*1, as processed by Minds & Computers. All physical batteries have limited discharging cycles, before they need to go back to the manufacturer to be recycled by the original Battery-maker. Plato envisioned that creation event as disorganized Chaos constructed into orderly Cosmos as-if by a metaphorical artisan*2. But, the a priori First Cause of the demiurge and creation event was left as a mystery.

Without more information about the precursor or pre-conditions of the Big Bang (our modern demiurge) we can only say that the philosophical principle of Potential for Actual causation necessarily pre-existed the realization of all natural forces. Perhaps that Platonic Form was something like a programmer encoding Information into Energy & Matter??? :smile:


*1. Is information a form of energy? :
Information is not itself energy. But you can trade entropy of information for entropy of state, which let's you turn "waste" energy, such as ambient heat, into useful energy. That's basically what Maxwell's Demon does.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/information-is-a-form-of-energy.461784/

*2. Plato's Universe :
The universe, or Cosmos, is a living being endowed with a soul (30C f.). The Cosmos was fashioned from a pre-existing chaos by a Divine Craftsman, the Demiurge, using the Forms as models for sensible objects (29D f.). Plato does not say what, if anything produced the Demiurge or the chaos.
https://physics.bgsu.edu/p433/Spacetime4.html

BATTERY ORGANIZED INTO OPPOSITE POLES WITH POTENTIAL BETWEEN

You say, Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — ucarr

Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation.

How is claiming first cause is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation different from claiming God is what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation?

...my point is that such an existence wouldn't be a hydrogen atom as we define it today. Whatever it is could exist, and to an untrained eye it might look like a hydrogen atom, but it cannot have the same exact composition as a hydrogen atom, or it would not have the special qualities you note. — Philosophim

If first cause proceeds without limitation, why do you imply that first cause, acting to cause hydrogen atom, must follow limits that humans use to make sense of the world? If first cause proceeds without limitation, then why cannot it incept a hydrogen atom that is not a hydrogen atom? You imply that first cause must act logically. Why do you not think that's a limitation upon the actions of first cause? Why do you not think implying first cause must act rationally is not a case of you projecting your logical thinking onto first cause?

Anything that does not exist as a hydrogen atom, is not a hydrogen atom. Once the existence is in reality, its rules are set. — Philosophim

Why do you think first cause, acting without limitations, must conform to humanoid logical thinking in causing a hydrogen atom to enter causality delineated as a stable and specific entity?

...if an object can incept other things, it must do so within the limitation of what it is. — Philosophim

Why do you not think the above quote is a contradiction of earlier saying:

Inception of creation proceeds without limitation. — Philosophim

Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking. Being without limitation, it might do so, so why do you say it must do so?

Why do you not agree that positing an infinity of individual causes of an infinity of individual things is a trivial and circular statement about the universe as it's generally known by the public (everything is everything)? — ucarr

Sorry Ucarr, I did not understand the question. I'm not sure what statements I've made that you're referencing here. — Philosophim

The following is my paraphrase of something you said earlier: A cause that's the first of all first causes doesn't prohibit subsequent non-cosmic first causes for other things.

If this is so, then our universe can be filled with a vast number of non-cosmic first causes. This is similar to saying, "there's a reason for everything that happens." This is a trivial truth agreed upon by the multitudes. "Everything is everything (for a reason)." Below is another one of your statements about the universe being stocked with myriad first causes.

It does not need to be eternal. A first cause has the potential of happening five seconds from now. A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim

Why do you not think a universe filled with first causes is a conception of the universe that explodes the following conservation law: matter_mass_energy are neither created nor destroyed. If non-cosmic first causes can pop material objects into the universe from nothing, then the total volume of the mass_matter_energy of the universe is constantly fluctuating instead of remaining constant through conservation. If you say incept of every new first cause disappears an earlier, established first cause, the problem is solved. However, this is very close to merely repeating the conservation laws for matter_mass_energy.

A first cause could have happened 10 seconds ago. What formed may very well be completely unstable and exist for a nano-second. Or five seconds. Or 500 years. Or eternal. — Philosophim

Does this hold true for the cosmic first cause, with cosmic first cause = the first of the first causes?

How do science, logic and reason examine what simply exists without the possibility of explanation? — ucarr

I think this question is too broad and you'll need to focus on something specific. What are you referencing in particular that you believe is outside of explanation? — Philosophim

I'm referencing axioms.

I'm saying its axiomatic, but not beyond the domains of science, logic, and reason. — Philosophim

Some characterize axioms as self-evident truths. This characterization is a preface to saying the assumption upon which we're building our working premise lies beyond the reach of experimentation, observation, collection of data, compiling of data statistics, analysis of data and building logical arguments supported by data. In short, it's saying our science follows from the axiom, but cannot penetrate into it.

It wasn't meant to be a literal example, it was meant to give you a visual of something not being there, then there. The big bang is another typical example. Does that work better? — Philosophim

No, the big bang does not work better. Something not being there, then there, is not the problem, because the thing could move there. What is the problem is absolutely nothing, then something.

And I've asked you to give a concrete example. I've even noted that I believe you aren't doing it because you know if you do, your point will collapse. That's a challenge anyone who believed in their point would rise to. — Philosophim

It was a logical argument I provided. Concrete examples are unnecessary, either you can show me the weakness in the argument or not. You have not even tried, asking for a concrete example instead.

Ok, and a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. This does not show that what I stated is wrong. Cause 'implies' change? What does that mean? The definition of cause has been clearly noted, you've recognized it, and this doesn't address the point at all. Also, no example despite my request. — Philosophim

You still have not addressed the argument. A "cause" must have an effect. This means that something is caused to change. That is the effect of the cause. The thing which changes exists prior to the cause, and posterior to the cause. It doesn't matter whether the cause is a "first cause" or not, the thing which is caused to change by the cause, exists prior to the cause.

I've already gone over reason and prior reason. I was the one to say these words first to Ludwig, " All causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes." So are the words I used to validate my points now invalid? — Philosophim

Yes your argument is invalid. You say, if there is no prior cause then there is no prior reason. That is an invalid conclusion if "not all reasons are causes" is true.

So I think we're done. I hope our next conversation doesn't have as much animosity from you next time. Especially after we started off so nicely when I said it was good to see you. Remember that? Lets end this on a high note. — Philosophim

There's no animosity on my part. It just seems like you get upset when you start to apprehend your mistakes.

I have made very similar posts on philosophy forums before, with the same 3 choices, but I came to the conclusion that the only thing we know for sure is that something exists outside the bounds of human reason.

If you look up a definition for deductive logic, you get something like, "The rules of correct inference from assumed premises." We cannot use logic on a first premise, because by definition, it is not derived from any premises. We cannot ever get to the bottom of infinite regression, because humans cannot calculate infinite processes. And circular logic is of course, also not considered valid under normal circumstances.

Of course, Hume was the first OG (so far as I know) to propose this dilemma, but he did not think of the 3rd option.

It seems to me that you can prove that these are the only 3 options, if you assume that logic is linear. Either causality is a ray (it has a beginning), or a line (it goes to infinity in both directions). If you admit the possibility of noneuclidean geometry, then the line could loop back into itself or cross itself (time travel). Actually, I just realized that there are 2 more options: there could be something without causality (a point), or nothing at all. But these other two options are not consistent with our sensory experience.

Since I am alive, I have to try to figure out what is valuable and important in life, even though there doesn't appear to be aby verifiable way to figure this stuff out. I find it useful, therefore, to assume that there is a first cause, which would be consistent with a creator God, because then I can start to imagine what the purpose of the universe is. I don't see a way forward (with respect to having a moral foundation) if the causality of the universe is infinite. I prefer to look to nature to learn about God, than human religious tradition, although the latter may sometimes be useful to learn proper psychological orientation. I have come to the idea then that God is an infinity of abstract potential (like the totality of all math), and that the material world exists in order to tangibly instantiate this potential. Then it seems clear that God is quite happy for existence to be exactly as it is, even if this existence is not pleasing to mortals. This worldview is psychologically pleasing because it provides a foundation for looking at any arbitrary thing and seeing good/beauty in it. This is especially helpful in situations where the attainment of selfish interests is totally impossible. When I can't have what I want, at least I can try to see that at least God is having his way. When it comes to personal or group suffering, the evolutionary process is useful for seeing the beauty of existence. Apparently to God, having life spontaneously improve itself through repeatedly instantiated proof by contradiction (the dying off of unfit forms) is more beautiful than the well-being of any individual organism.

The supposed "heat death" is an interesting issue. The heat death is the result of entropy which is the natural effect of the passage of time. "Entropy" refers to energy which is unavailable to the system, but cannot be shown to have escaped the system. So by the rules of the conservation law, that energy must still be within the system somehow, only not available to the system.

This leaves us with the question of, "what form could this energy have?". It is not "energy" as we know "energy", because "energy" is defined as the capacity to do work, and this energy is denied of that capacity. It is only "energy" because the law of conservation dictates that it must be conserved as "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover

Typically the form of energy, which shows up as entropic losses of a system, is in the form of heat. There is nothing all that mysterious about such heat energy. It simply becomes difficult to make any use of heat energy when all parts of a system are at nearly the same temperature.

Why do you say above statement is not knowledge of the identity of the first cause? I ask this question because you identify first cause as what acts without limitation in causing the inception of creation. — ucarr

No, I did not claim a first cause is the inception of all creation. A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. The entirety of our universe may very well be explained by several first causes over time culminating in today. A first cause does not necessitate that it be able to do anything. I just noted that there is no limitation on what could incept as a first cause. But once its incepted, it is what it is, which is possibly limited.

If first cause proceeds without limitation, why do you imply that first cause, acting to cause hydrogen atom, must follow limits that humans use to make sense of the world? — ucarr

To clarify, it is not that humans determine limitations on what can be, it is that identities are imposed limitations on what we call certain things. We do not call an elephant a human for example. Of course, someone could say, "What if a human formed that looked, behaved, and acted exactly as an elephant?"
I would simply say, "That's just an elephant".

To your point about a hydrogen atom, we do not identify a hydrogen atom as being able to create ex nihilo. Now, could someone say, "That is really similar to a hydrogen atom and it creates other existences besides itself". Sure. But its not a hydrogen atom as we currently define it, because hydrogen atoms cannot do that. Do you understand that this is mostly a semantics argument? What we call or identify as something does not limit what can be. But definitions limit us to looking at a narrow band of existence and saying, "That existence is the identity we call 'a hydrogen atom'"

Another thing to understand is that because all things are possible as first causes, its equally possible a hydrogen atom, as we identify it, just forms and exists as normal. There is not the need for anything out there, just as there is not the denial that anything out there is possible. While anything could have been possible, (and would still be as a first cause could happen at any time) what first causes actually happen are part of causality, and discoverable by working up the causal chain. So, if the big bang were a first cause for example, we could work up the chain of causality to find and prove that it is not possible that there was anything prior that caused the big bang.

You imply that first cause must act logically. Why do you not think that's a limitation upon the actions of first cause? Why do you not think implying first cause must act rationally is not a case of you projecting your logical thinking onto first cause? — ucarr

Because a first cause must act causally. A first cause has no prior cause for existence correct? Which means that a first cause cannot cause another first cause. It causes what it does, therefore what and how it causes something is rational. Only the inception of a first cause, and what it would be, is something which cannot be predicted with certainty.

Even if you're not talking about cosmic first cause and instead are talking about one of the subsequent first causes, why must cosmic cause acting without limitation incept a subsequent causality that resembles human logical thinking. — ucarr

To detail into this, lets say a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause and causes another hydrogen atom. Whether we observe this or not is irrelevant, it is the reality of the situation. To cause something means there is some rule that indicates why the thing caused happened. Meaning, causal logic will always be in play.

If a hydrogen atom appears as a first cause then a helium atom appears as a first cause, the hydrogen atom did not cause the helium atom to appear. So you see, it is impossible for something which causes another to be free of causal logic. The first cause is not free of causal logic either, it is the start.

The following is my paraphrase of something you said earlier: A cause that's the first of all first causes doesn't prohibit subsequent non-cosmic first causes for other things.

If this is so, then our universe can be filled with a vast number of non-cosmic first causes. — ucarr

Correct, that's one possibility if we don't yet know the reality.

This is similar to saying, "there's a reason for everything that happens." This is a trivial truth agreed upon by the multitudes. "Everything is everything (for a reason)." — ucarr

I don't see that. I think there's a difference between saying, "There's a reason for everything" and then spelling out what that reason is or how it must unfold.

Why do you not think a universe filled with first causes is a conception of the universe that explodes the following conservation law: matter_mass_energy are neither created nor destroyed. — ucarr

Because that's a law based on what we've observed with the matter that we've seen so far. Its been necessary to do physics. I would say that as an empirical law, this is true. As a logical law, this is not.

If non-cosmic first causes can pop material objects into the universe from nothing, then the total volume of the mass_matter_energy of the universe is constantly fluctuating instead of remaining constant through conservation. — ucarr

True. We are just assuming its remained constant. This logically is not necessarily the case.

If you say incept of every new first cause disappears an earlier, established first cause, the problem is solved. — ucarr

No, I'm not saying that. Its possible that some first causes incept then vanish. Its possible that there are first causes that could exist for trillions of years. I'm only asserting that its possible that first causes happened over the time of the universe's inception, and still today. It doesn't mean they did or will, its just possible if we don't know about them

Does this hold true for the cosmic first cause, with cosmic first cause = the first of the first causes? — ucarr

Yes. If it is the case that there was a 'first' first cause, it may have only existed for a short period of time then vanished. So prior to our universe, there could have been many first causes that blipped in and out of existence making a much more limited impact (or greater!) impact then our own.

Some characterize axioms as self-evident truths. — ucarr

I do not believe in self-evident truth. Truth is what is. Knowledge is our best logical attempt at capturing what truth is. There is knowledge that is clearly sound, and knowledge that is questionable and likely built on some inductions.

This characterization is a preface to saying the assumption upon which we're building our working premise lies beyond the reach of experimentation, observation, collection of data, compiling of data statistics, analysis of data and building logical arguments supported by data. — ucarr

I believe some of the things about first causes are beyond experimentation or observation. Since we cannot predict the inception of a first cause, we cannot predict when one will happen. We could, if the first cause were very specific, trace back through causality and arrive at a point in which 'this X' must necessarily have been a first cause. But this must be proven, which means all other potential causes of 'X's inception must be ruled out.

I hope this answers your questions!

It seems to me that you can prove that these are the only 3 options, if you assume that logic is linear. Either causality is a ray (it has a beginning), or a line (it goes to infinity in both directions). If you admit the possibility of noneuclidean geometry, then the line could loop back into itself or cross itself (time travel). Actually, I just realized that there are 2 more options: there could be something without causality (a point), or nothing at all. But these other two options are not consistent with our sensory experience. — Brendan Golledge

True. And I never make a claim that my point is empirically proven, its only logic.

I find it useful, therefore, to assume that there is a first cause, which would be consistent with a creator God, because then I can start to imagine what the purpose of the universe is. I don't see a way forward (with respect to having a moral foundation) if the causality of the universe is infinite. — Brendan Golledge

I have another thread where I'm exploring an objective morality with another fantastic poster, Bob Ross. Its evolved and become more clear than my initial post, but perhaps it might interest you to check it out. Long story short, existence is what is good, and ensuring the most realized and potential existence is what is best. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1

A first cause is the inception of a causality chain. — Philosophim

Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes, each first cause is a discrete causality chain, and therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time, and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong.

I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I think you have left out two options. I think the options are:-
1. A beginning, but no end (your ray).
2. An end, but no beginning.
3. No beginning and no end (your line).
etc.

Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes, each first cause is a discrete causality chain, and therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time, and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong. — ucarr

This is really close. Let me break it down to be sure.

"Do you accept the following argument: Since by definition a first cause can't have any derivative first causes"

Yes, agreed.

"Each first cause is a discrete causality chain"

Results in a discrete causality chain that can intersect with other discrete causality chains, yes.

"therefore the universe is coming into existence sequentially in time"

Yes. Just to make sure, this does not preclude other first causes appearing during this time.

" and thus the big bang and its inception of the entire universe in an instant is wrong."

No, I want to clearly state that I am not stating "X is an actual first cause". We don't know how many first causes have happened since the big bang. We're not even sure if the big bang itself is a first cause. All we can logically conclude that there must be at least one, and its equally as probable that there could be more than one.

But to see if I can tackle another idea I see you might be conveying, lets say the big bang was the only first cause. The first cause is the bang. Everything that happens immediately after that is caused by the bang. If no other first causes appeared and had causal associations with what appeared from the big bang, then there would only be one first cause of our universe, the big bang. That of course must be proven.