So, you're saying that even though a first cause is logically necessary, that doesn't necessarily imply the necessity of a first cause of all first causes? — ucarr
Are we looking at a concept of causation with potentially unlimited number of first causes and yet no first cause for the set of first causes? — ucarr
You've said you're not making a claim that a thing -- such as a God, or the Big Bang -- acts as the first cause. — ucarr
Also, you've clarified that your thesis only posits the logical necessity of a first cause. Now you say you don't know if immaterial existence is a thing. — ucarr
Is it pertinent to the content and intentions of your thesis to suppose you take no definitive position on the materiality or immateriality of the logically necessary first cause? — ucarr
First, if you remember a first cause cannot cause another first cause. — Philosophim
Second, its possible that there was a first cause that happened, then other first causes happened later. Or it could be that two or more first causes happened simultaneously. — Philosophim
I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. — Philosophim
I don't even know what immaterial existence is. — Philosophim
That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. — Gnomon
Also correct! — Philosophim
Its completely irrelevant whether there is immaterial existence or not. — Philosophim
My mistake. I should've written: So, you're saying that even though a first cause is logically necessary, that doesn't necessarily imply the necessity of a first cause of all first causes? — ucarr
Are we looking at a concept of causation with an unlimited number of possible and independent first causes? — ucarr
I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause.
— Philosophim
So, you're saying anything that can exist might be a first cause? — ucarr
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept -- or some such entity -- that inhabits the mind apart from matter. Have you not agreed with Gnomon (below) that concepts are immaterial and real? — ucarr
Have you not agreed with Gnomon (above) that immaterial yet real concepts -- as distinguished from matter -- are useful for correctly understanding your thesis, and therefore pertinent to it? — ucarr
Are we looking at a concept of causation with an unlimited number of possible and independent first causes? — ucarr
The start of each chain is separate and independent — Philosophim
I'm noting the variable of 'a first cause' is logically necessary. What's in that actual set, one or many more, is irrelevant. — Philosophim
By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept — ucarr
I don't care whether they're immaterial or not. Are they real? Yes. — Philosophim
I can tell you that nothing has changed from our conversation in which I spoke to you Ucarr. So its best not to confuse yourself by trying to follow it [Philosphim's dialogue with Gnomon]. — Philosophim
My intention here is to understand that a first of all first causes, if it happens, holds no special status because first causes are independent. — ucarr
I've been striving to understand that the gist of your claim is to say each causal chain must have a first cause. In so stating, I understand you take no particular position on the ontic identity of a first cause and its following chain. — ucarr
You've previously stated there're no limitations on what a first cause can be. Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent? — ucarr
Are you allowing that "real" names a comprehensive set of things that funds first causes and that whether or not this set includes both material and immaterial things is irrelevant to your work in this conversation? — ucarr
You presume incorrectly my questions are darts aimed at your previous statements. I like to think I'm slowly improving my understanding of the intentions behind your words. — ucarr
Are you advising me to stop undertaking my own independent inferential thinking because you think it [sometimes] erroneous? — ucarr
In a concomitant action, are you trying to restrict the range of actions, techniques and approaches I can use in my interactions with you? — ucarr
If you think you're repeating yourself in your responses, name the topic, tell me I'm repeating my questions thereof and I'll agree not to ask additional repeat questions on the topic. — ucarr
I could agree with that statement, except that the "eternal" adjectives could be mis-interpreted. AFAIK the "causal chain" is spatial & temporal, not eternal : AFAIK, space-time began with a bang. The "logical necessity" is a concept in my mind, to explain the existence of the space-time world. It may be "eternal", but all I'm saying is that it is necessarily pre-big-bang. :smile:So, our world is an eternal following-causal-chain in the sense that its origin, Prime Cause, is an eternal logical necessity. — ucarr
Ha! Gnomon is not conspiring with to get our "story" straight. We just happen to view the First Cause postulate as a plausible philosophical explanation for the existence of a contingent & sequential Reality, in which a new thing or event necessarily follows from a previous event. The prior thing or event is what we call the "Cause"*1 of the subsequent thing or event. How we articulate that notion may vary. But in general we both seem to agree with the reasoning of Plato and Aristotle. If that sounds like Idealism to you, then so be it. :joke:Have you not agreed with Gnomon (above) that immaterial yet real concepts -- as distinguished from matter -- are useful for correctly understanding your thesis, and therefore pertinent to it? — ucarr
I suspect that the term "immaterial"*2 may mean something different to you than to Gnomon & Philosophim. For example : concepts & ideas are not "real" but ideal. We are not trying to say what an abstraction is "made of", because it's not a material object, and is not "made of" any physical substance.By immaterial existence I mean an abstract concept -- or some such entity -- that inhabits the mind apart from matter. Have you not agreed with Gnomon (below) that concepts are immaterial and real? — ucarr
You've previously stated there're no limitations on what a first cause can be. Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent? — ucarr
No. Please explain how you came to this conclusion from what I wrote. — Philosophim
I'm saying I'm not claiming any one PARTICULAR thing is a first cause. — Philosophim
So, you're saying anything that can exist might be a first cause? — ucarr
We're having a language barrier issue here. :) Think of it as a variable set Ucarr. I'm noting the variable of 'a first cause' is logically necessary. What's in that actual set, one or many more, is irrelevant. What actual first causes have happened over the lifetime in the universe is up for other people to prove. I am not saying that anything which exists can be a first cause. — Philosophim
... Are you now presenting an elaboration that rejects the notion "there're no limitations on what a first cause can be and "anything that can exist might be a first cause"? are logically equivalent? — ucarr
I am not saying that anything which exists can be a first cause. — ucarr
There're no limitations on what a first cause can be — ucarr
Imagine a die with all possibilities. Now the die is rolled. Whatever lands is what is. If someone claims, "Its a six", we should be able to prove that it did roll a six. Once it is rolled we are out of the realm of possibility and in the realm of actuality. — Philosophim
If it's true that: "before first cause, nothing," then a justification of this premise with a supporting premise that employs the material things of our everyday world as an example of first cause inception -- a rolling die with numbers on six sides -- cannot be a pertinent and probative example of first cause from nothing. — ucarr
I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2. {pardon the pigeon-holing} Both are Metaphysical concepts created in philosophical Minds. Each perspective has developed a peculiar vocabulary of its own. So, you may think that Gnomon's worldview is Idealistic (no thing), and in direct opposition to Materialism (no thought). But my Enformationism worldview is not so easy to pigeonhole, because it is moderated by the Holistic BothAnd approach to understanding the Things of Reality and the Non-Things of Ideality.You have said: "... before first cause, nothing."
How do your descriptions of the inception of first cause have anything to work with other than nothing? — ucarr
...prior to the inception of a first cause, "It could be anything." — Philosophim
Since logical necessity is a strict limitation, by your main argument -- There're are no limitations on what a first cause can be -- a first cause cannot be logically necessary. The necessity of its existence precludes its existence. Why is this not a Russell's Paradox type of contradiction that negates the truth value of your thesis? — ucarr
It seems to me your argument misses a significant distinction: 'that there is first cause' & 'what the first cause is'; "there is no limitation on what the first cause is', not in reference to 'that there was a first cause'. — 180 Proof
On p.1 of this thread back in 2022 (if you've missed it), I had posted very brief logical and physical objections to the OP's incoherent claim of "logical necessity of the first cause" (i.e. there was/is no "first cause"). FWIW, here"s the link to my post (further supplimented on the next few pages of this thread) containing two other links to short posts:Philosophim has claimed there is no limitation on what a first cause can be. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he has claimed there is a conclusive limitation on that a first cause can be: logical necessity. — ucarr
On p.1 of this thread back in 2022 (if you've missed it), I had posted very brief logical and physical objections to the OP's incoherent claim of "logical necessity of the first cause" (i.e. there was/is no "first cause"). FWIW, here"s the link to my post (further supplimented on the next few pages of this thread) containing two other links to short posts: — 180 Proof
I'm now expressing big gratitude to 180 Proof. He's done a superb job fulfilling my request. I now believe his statement above detects a fatal flaw in my argument. — ucarr
I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2 — Gnomon
*2. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism — Gnomon
Thanks. Speaking of philosophical aisles :Handshakes across the aisle. — ucarr
is much more knowledgeable of Philosophy than I am. But his worldview & belief system (Immanentism ; p-Naturalism) has an inherent limit that precludes consideration of some logical possibilities that go beyond space-time : his "conclusive limitation". I suspect that you might agree with that physical barrier, while disagreeing with the implied logical limitation : Abstract Reason can go (in imaginary scenarios) where no material body can go. The human Mind can project (fantasy or logic) into the Future and into the Past, in order to learn about otherwise unknowable possibilities : e.g. Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey*1.It seems to me your argument misses a significant distinction: 'that there is first cause' & 'what the first cause is'; "there is no limitation on what the first cause is', not in reference to 'that there was a first cause'. — 180 Proof
I'm now expressing big gratitude to 180 Proof. He's done a superb job fulfilling my request. I now believe his statement above detects a fatal flaw in my argument. Philosophim has claimed there is no limitation on what a first cause can be. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he has claimed there is a conclusive limitation on that a first cause can be: logical necessity. — ucarr
In this thread, I never got the impression that you were arguing for any specific kind of First Cause (What), but merely reasoning about the logical necessity for something to kick-start the chain of Causation (That). — Gnomon
When ↪Philosophim says that there is "no limit" on what the Cause of Being might be {see PS below}, he's merely admitting that we are speculating about a state & event that is empirically unverifiable (no known rules), but logically plausible (rules of reasoning) — Gnomon
Nevertheless, for the purposes of an amateur forum, we can reasonably conclude that a contingent world (big bang beginning) requires a prior Cause of some kind (infinite ; recursive?) — Gnomon
*3. "I'm a p-naturalist¹ and thereby speculatively assume that aspects of nature are only explained within – immanently to – nature itself by using other aspects of nature, which includes "consciousness" as an attribute of at least one natural species." ___180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/867837
Note --- The First Cause speculation is not about any particular "aspect" of Nature, but about all aspects of Nature : the Cosmos as a whole living (dynamic, if you prefer) system that was born and is fated to die. — Gnomon
In his smirking reply to my post above --- "possibilities that go beyond space-time" --- indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} That working hypothesis may be necessary for the purposes of Empirical science, but it is self-limiting for the explorations of theoretical Philosophy. That would be like Columbus assuming the conventional belief of the era, that there is nothing over the horizon to the west of Europe.This is what I think 180 Proof failed to understand. He's an intelligent person, but I believe was convinced the argument was trying to say something it wasn't. The major struggle I've had in this OP was getting people break free of the"first cause is a God" argument that has been locked in debate for decades. It can be hard to shake for some. My hopes were to get both atheists and theists to see that we're missing an incredible point in the midst of the overwhelming concern about proving/disproving deities. — Philosophim
I did not claim or imply this.↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon
methodological materialism (i.e. populating models with immaterial data – entities, causes – amplifies experimental error, therefore scientific (and historical) practices require eliminating as much immaterial data as possible as the preliminary method of decreasing a model's experimental error – making it (more) testable) — 180 Proof
I don't see how any logic can be applied to the situation if we don't know the physics involved first. It's rather futile to try. Want are you doing? Applying a mental overlay to unknown physics?
It doesn't seem reasonable. — Mark Nyquist
Here's one. We don't know the exact nature of time. An interesting twist is the possibility of retrocausality or back propagation of signals. — Mark Nyquist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.