Firstly, infinite causal chains are central to your premise. Is this an admission your premise is therefore flawed? Secondly, I'd like to see you argue against the logical merit of infinity as a concept, thereby simultaneously arguing against the logical merit of your premise. — ucarr
I know you're not persuaded by my logic and I, likewise, am not persuaded by yours. I hope you don't feel obligated to refute my arguments here. — ucarr
I’m arguing that nothingness cannot support an intersection with somethingness. — ucarr
When you posit that C is the set containing all causes (i.e., contingent events) and that the universe has a cause (i.e., is a contingent event), then the universe is a member of C and NOT C. You are conflating them. — Bob Ross
Philosophim, you must remember that the stipulation you gave is that C, which can be whatever you want to call it, is a set of infinite elements containing every cause — Bob Ross
First cause - The point in causality in which there is nothing which caused a set of existence
If I were to rewrite this today, I would not use the term "First cause", but I would still use the underlying concept. That there is a point in causality that is always reached in which there is no cause for that state in question.
I mention this, because you may be having an issue with the phrase. If you do, dismiss the phrase.
Also a more interesting an viable discussion in my mind is Bob Ross's points. — Philosophim
This is the old "Something-from-Nothing" argument. Raising the old "Why is there something instead of nothing?" head scratcher.Correct. The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause. The infinite universe as a whole exists without something else causing it. — Philosophim
If by causality, you really mean temporal causality; then that needs to be clarified in the OP. Your OP clearly, taken literally, is discussing an infinite causality in 6 and not an infinite of temporal causality. — Bob Ross
You have not negated the possibility of an infinite of causality which does not lead to a first cause; instead, you have now negated the possibility of an infinite of temporal causality not having itself a cause (at best). — Bob Ross
First cause - The point in causality in which there is nothing which caused a set of existence
This isn’t proven, because you are now shifting your argument to discuss the impossibility of an infinite temporal causality having no cause; well, that’s simply not what one would argue if they are arguing that causality is infinite proper. — Bob Ross
I would also like to mention, that one could also posit coherently that T is equal to C because all causes are temporal; and that C/T is eternal and that C/T is not a first cause. In other words, using T instead of C doesn’t help your case, because T being eternal doesn’t make it a first cause. — Bob Ross
Will do. However, if I interpret your idea of “first cause” as merely “something which is no cause”; then this is a vacuously true truth that no one, atheist nor theist, will deny — Bob Ross
You've been extraordinarily generous with your time, energy, and patience in the interest of the thoroughness of our dialogue. — ucarr
Your exertions herein have afforded me an ample supply of time and opportunity to practice and develop both my debate strategy and my execution. — ucarr
I'm now going to bow out from our dialogue. — ucarr
Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon
If these side-track questions are of interest to posters on this First Cause thread, I might be inspired to start a new thread on tracing Causation from First Spark down the evolutionary trail to the emergence of Inquiring Minds, who ask unverifiable open-ended questions ; taking the risk of sounding stupid or clever on a public forum. :smile: — Gnomon
"Come up with whatever crazy idea of universal origin you want. It doesn't matter. It will always inevitably end up here."
For the sake of the argument, I am going to step up and respond with "My 'crazy' idea of reality is that it is an infinite series of atemporal and temporal causes, and this doesn't lead to there being a first cause".
By your admission in the quote above, you are arguing that somehow my claim here does end with a first cause. So, how does it? — Bob Ross
Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause & effect space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. — Philosophim
PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry? — Gnomon
...leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. — Gnomon
I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? — Gnomon
If you don't like the idea of atemporal causes, then I am talking about an infinite series of temporal causes and there are no other causes that are not in that infinite series.
The series, conceptually, can be represented as a set which I will call C.
C itself has no cause, because it is the series of all causes.
You are claiming either the series C is not infinite, or that C itself leads to a first cause. Neither can be true, so I am not following your argument for this part. — Bob Ross
The second you say that C is not the entire end to the chain of causality, is the second you conflate C with something else. C is the series of causes in total, so, by definition, you cannot be correct in that there is a cause which is not a member of C. — Bob Ross
The first cause is the most fundamental one, the cause that each effect depends on. Every other cause needs God. So if he didn't exist, neither would anyone nor anything else. — BillMcEnaney
However, it cannot have a first cause if one understands properly what an infinite set of all causes is. It is logically necessary that it does not have a first cause, ironically. — Bob Ross
[1] you concede it is infinite in "what caused there to be an infinite set of all causes?" — Bob Ross
[2] you are asking presupposing that a cause could exist which is not a member of a set of all causes — Bob Ross
I think it is best we agree to disagree at this point — Bob Ross
I look forward to further discussions with you in the future, and feel free to jump back in any time. — Philosophim
I think it is best we agree to disagree at this point; as anything else I say will be a reiteration. — Bob Ross
The summation of the series is 1. It approaches 1 but never quite gets there. It's a limit property. — jgill
Your mistake is that you are looking inside the set for a start point. The start point is not inside the set. It is the question of what caused the entire set. — Philosophim
… you are starting with C (an infinite set that contains all causality) and then treating C as if it is one of its members (k) without realizing it.
“Philosophim, you must remember that the stipulation you gave is that C, which can be whatever you want to call it, is a set of infinite elements containing every cause; so, the only way you can get the result you are wanting (which is that C is a cause and is the set of all causes) is with an incoherent circular dependency: C:={…, C, …}. — Bob Ross
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.