↪Philosophim Is identity politics a sign of leftism? — frank

No. Both left and right partake in identity politics. I would say the left uses identity to achieve equitable egalitarianism while the right uses identity to continue to assert and justify the powerful to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to those less powerful.

I also want to make it very clear that both taken to their extremes are awful, but both taken to a certain extent are very beneficial to society. There is no winner here.

I personally find the categories of left and right to result in lazy tribal thinking. I find it much more helpful if a person examines an idea on its merit, because right and left seem to be personal tribal identity, and cause people to avoid even considering certain ideas for fear of going against their identity.

That being said, the left is typically about egalitarianism with equal opportunities. The far left would be a large change in societal laws that result in more equitable and baseline starting points in society. One example I can think of would be universal income. This would result in a baseline standard that all people had to work with. Some of course would use that opportunity better than others, but every one would have at least that.

Another example of far leftism would be wanting to consider a person's entire background and evaluate their advantages or disadvantages before deciding how you will treat them in any situation. So for example, if a person came from an uneducated background, you would take the extra time and effort to change your language, approach, and education. Think about a bank teller offering a loan to someone at a particular interest rate. The far left would require that the bank teller explain to the person how much it will cost them over the years, and give alternative options. Someone not left would just offer them the loan, and leave it up to them to make the decision themselves, regardless of their education.

The more left you are, the more the powerful are expected to expend effort and sacrifice for the less powerful. The more right you are, the more acceptable it is for the powerful to exert themselves without any concern of the consequences of those less powerful than they are.

However, if you mean "induction" ~> "deductive conclusion" -> "analysis of induction" — Bob Ross

Yes, this is my intention.

With regard to the second sentence, I think you are suggesting that Applicable Knowledge can be a conclusion that is an induction, which I would strongly disagree with (if I am understanding that sentence correctly). — Bob Ross

No, I simply mean that someone can do induction ~> inductive conclusion -> analysis of second induction as a conclusion of the first induction, and this would not be applicable knowledge.

I think I am starting to understand better what you are conveying. Essentially (and correct me if I am wrong) you are utilizing "applicable knowledge" as a distinction to emphasize that which is not in our control and, thusly, must be discovered as opposed to projected. Although I think there is a meaningful distinction between "discovery" and "projection", I think ultimately it is all discovery. — Bob Ross

This is a good way to break it down. And yes, I've never denied that knowledge is ultimately deductions. But, ultimately all molecules are made up of atoms. It doesn't mean that the creation of the identity of separate molecules doesn't serve a helpful purpose. However, I think you've made some good points, and I will have to go back to my original definition of applicable knowledge. While I think we use applicable knowledge to resolve inductions, the act of resolving inductions in a deductive manner is not applicable knowledge itself. Applicable knowledge is when we attempt to match an experience to the distinctive knowledge we have created, and deductively resolve whether there is, or is not a match.

I can also flip a penny, look at the result and wonder if I've seen it before. I then try to match the symbol to what is considered "heads" in my mind, and I do so without contradiction. This is distinctive knowledge. — Bob Ross

No, distinctive knowledge is when I create an identity when I flip the coin. There are no limitations as to what I can create. I can call it one side "feet" and the other side "hands", with their own essential and non-essential properties. If I attempt to match the coin's side to an identity I created previously with distinctive knowledge, then I am attempting applicable knowledge. If I conclude what I see matches the essential properties of the definitions I hold, then I have applicable knowledge that there is a match.

When you stated "seems familiar", I can see how that could potentially imply an assertion that it actually is familiar, which would imply that it has been seen before (which is an induction). — Bob Ross

This is the induction I'm talking about. When you believe that what you've seen matches distinctive knowledge, this is an induction, not a deduction. The act of checking, understands that you don't know the answer until after you've checked. You can deduce, "I don't know if what I've observed matches my distinctive knowledge." But if you are going to try to match it, there is uncertainty until you arrive at a deduced outcome.

But I realize I am stretching what it means to be an induction here. The idea of deductively matching to the identities you distinctively know, vs creating identities you distinctively know, was the original way I described applicable knowledge. While I have tried to see if there is an implicit induction in the act of matching, I'm not sure there is now. Its not necessarily an induction, its the experience of the unknown, and how you attempt to deal with it. An induction is really just an extension of the unknown. And whether our deduction is distinctive or applicable (an attempt to match to distinctive) is really just a way a person has decided to resolve an induction. Do we attempt to match to our identities, or create a new one?

That being said, I'm glad we've explored this route, as I believe examining the resolution of an induction seems to be important. I also still claim that one can only resolve an induction applicably. Only after that can they create new distinctive knowledge. An induction relies on distinctive knowledge in its claim. First, one must resolve the induction based on that distinctive knowledge. If one changes the definitions prior to this induction, one is not really testing the induction, they are avoiding it and making another claim. After one has resolved the induction based on the distinctive knowledge of the definitions originally made, then one of course can change and amend their distinctive knowledge as I've noted before.

"Does this side of the penny match heads?" is a completely neutral assertion, because it isn't an assertion at all. I am not inducing that it does match or that it doesn't. So that "question" coupled with the "answer" would be, in this case, distinctive knowledge. — Bob Ross

While I agree with everything you've said here, I want to note the solution would be applicable knowledge if you tried to match "heads" with your distinctively known identities. If you decided to create an identity, that would be distinctive knowledge.

"resolution" of an induction is simply utilizing our knowledge to ascertain how aligned it was with true knowledge, which is a spectrum (it isn't a binary decision of "I resolved that it was true or that it was false): my induction could have been correct to any degree, and incorrect to any degree. Likewise, it is a continual process, we simply take the knowledge we have and utilize it to determine how "correct" our induction was, but we can very well keep doing this as our knowledge increases. — Bob Ross

An induction can be resolved with another induction, or a deduction. If one "resolves" an induction with another induction, its not really resolved. In the case of an induction's resolution being another induction, we have taken a belief, and believed a particular answer resulted. In the case where we applicably resolve an induction, we have removed uncertainty. Of course, this has never meant that knowledge could not change at a later time as new distinctive knowledge is learned, or we obtain new experiences and deductions that invalidate what we knew at one time. But the future invalidation of a deduction does not invalidate that at the time it was made it was a deduction, and what a person could applicably know in that situation with what they had.

But when considering something really complicated like evolution, it is much harder to see how one would ever holistically know such: it is more that we have ample knowledge grounding it (such as evolutionary facts and many aspects of the theory), but there's never a point where we truly can deduce it holistically. — Bob Ross

There are cases where if we analyze the chain of reasoning, we'll find inductions that have never been deductively resolved. That's where the hierarchy of induction comes in. Further, areas where cogent inductions are within our logic should always be noted as possibilities we can always go back an attempt to improve on. There is nothing wrong with noting that a claim to knowledge has inductions without deduced resolutions within it, if it truly is the best conclusion we can make. But glossing over that it is an induction is not a resolution either. Some things which we know are at their core cogent inductions, with hypothetical deductions as the assumed resolution. If that is the best we can do with what we have, then it is the tool we should pick.

And, yes, inducing that Gandolf is a real person does put it in a different light, which is simply that it no longer indexically refers to a movie. I'm not sure how this necessitates that this distinction ought to be made as "induction" ~> "deduction" vs "deduction". I know deductively the indexical properties of the given proposition, and thereby can ascertain whether my assertion actually does pertain to the subject at hand or whether I am misguided. — Bob Ross

This example was only to demonstrate the importance of looking at the chain of thinking, and how it is important to realize that deductions in isolation do not necessarily tell the full story of what a person knows.

Although I see the meaningful distinction here, I don't think this has any direct correlation to your "distinctive" vs "applicable" knowledge distinction. Firstly, someone could actually have meant to bet on Buttercup but instead associated the wrong horse with the name on accident. Secondly, they could be simply trying to change because their bet was wrong. It isn't that we want definitive "deduced answers", it is that we want definitive answers (which can be inductions). — Bob Ross

I went into societal context here. In this case, society will not accept an individual changing the definitions involved in the original bet. Despite the individuals intention that they bet on "the other horse", the reality recorded by society is that they bet on the losing horse.

This again is more of an example to demonstrate the importance of resolving a situation that is "unknown". While originally I proposed the resolution of the induction was applicable knowledge, I feel confident at this point to go back to my original meaning, which was that one could solve this uncertainty applicably, or distinctively. The point here is to emphasize once again that resolving inductions with deduced resolutions is an important societal need and should be considered in any theory of knowledge.

I am failing to see how hyperfocusing on one contextual distinction (distinctive and applicable) amongst a potential infinite of contextual differences is meaningful. — Bob Ross

As I've noted so far, I believe the decision to create an identity, vs match to an identity one has already created is a meaningful distinction that is important when trying to resolve knowledge questions. We can go into this deeper next discussion if needed.

I partially agree with you here. but it is vital to clarify that science does not solely seek to prove something is false and, in the event that it can't, deem it true (that is the definition of an appeal to ignorance fallacy). — Bob Ross

I did not mean to imply that science marks as "true" whatever is not disproven. It simply notes such alternatives are not yet disproven. I don't want to get into the philosophy of science here (We have enough to cover!), as long as there is an understanding science takes steps to disprove a hypothesis, that is the point I wanted to get across.

What do you mean by "potential inductions"? I would hold that there are no inductions in deductive premises. If conditionals are not inductions. — Bob Ross

A hypothetical deduction is when we take an induction, and take the logical deductive conclusion if it resolves a particular way. This deduction is not a resolution to the induction, this is a deductive conclusion if the induction resolves a particular way. Just as a hypothetical is a potential deductive conclusion, every hypothetical has a potential induction it is drawn from.

If I state "I think this is red", and then attempt to match it to "redness" abstractly am I making an induction (originally). However, I can see something and ask "what is this?" or "I wonder if this is a color?" and then match it to "redness" abstractly to deduce it is red. An induction is not necessary, but can occur. — Bob Ross

I agree. This is why I'm going back to my original definition of applicable knowledge, which is when we attempt to match our experiences with our previously established distinctive knowledge and deduce an answer.

Thank you for explaining your view on libertarian free will. I have no disagreement with this, as this is simply a distinctive context you've chosen. Part of what I refine into the distinctive knowledge of "I" is that which wills. How I am formed or determined is irrelevant to how I define myself. This does not negate your distinctive context either. If such a distinctive context is useful to yourself, then I see no reason not to use it.

But, does your distinctive context escape the epistemology proposed here? I would argue no. You still need a set of definitions. You can create a distinctive logic using the definitions you've come up with. The question then becomes whether you can applicably know it in your experience. If you can, then you have a viable distinctive and applicable set of knowledge that works for you. I of course can do the same with mine. If I expand the definition of the I to also include "will", then I can prove that I can will my arm to move, and it does. And in such a way, my definition of "I", and having control over particular things is applicably known as well. I personally find the idea that I control things useful to my outlook in life. You personally do not. For our purposes here, I'm not sure this difference between us is all that important to the main theory.

But what is this principle (Inductive hierarchy) based on? Knowledge or a belief? This is the presupposition of which I don't think we quite explored yet. I don't see how it is necessarily deduced (therefore knowledge) for them. — Bob Ross

The hierarchy of induction is distinctively known based on the logic proposed earlier. I have always stated that despite our conclusions of what is more cogent, they are always still inductions. Meaning that choosing a cogent induction does not mean the outcome of that induction will be correct.

The probability of a jack being pulled out of a deck of 52 cards. The most cogent guess with that information is that any card but a jack will be drawn next. But a jack can still be drawn. This is more cogent that not knowing how many of each card are in the deck, but knowing that at least one exists in it. We may guess a jack will be drawn without odds, but that is not as likely to be correct as when we guess with the odds that could have been known. Again, even if there is only 1 jack, it does not negate it may be drawn.

And of course, speculating that a jack can be drawn in a deck of cards, when we have never seen a jack be drawn, and do not know if there is even one in the deck, is even less cogent. There of course could be a jack, but its less reasonable to guess there is a jack before one knows the deck contains a jack. And of course, we could be shown the deck, that there is not a jack, but still guess a jack will be drawn. While this is irrational, perhaps the dealer did something outside of our applied knowledge, such as slipped a jack in when we weren't looking.

But is the hierarchy of inductions applicably known? No, that would require extensive testing. These are fairly easy tests to create however. First, mix different card types into a deck on each test. Show the person the odds of the cards in the deck, and have them guess what card will come next. Second, don't show the person the odds of the cards in the deck, just tell them what's in it. Third, don't show them what card types you shuffled into the deck. Finally, show them all the cards in the deck, then have them guess a card that is not in the deck. Do this hundreds of times, then chart the percentage of guesses that were correct for each cogency level. Do I have confidence that such a test will reveal the more cogent the induction, the higher chance a person's guess will be correct? Yes.

Great points again Bob. I think you have thoroughly shown that I can not expand applicable knowledge as the resolution of an induction. It is that we resolve inductions using applicable knowledge. The results of that resolution can then be used to make new distinctive knowledge. I think this is enough for me to cover right now, and I look forward to your further critique!

You could try sharing that evidence if you like
— Philosophim

Every creature and the sky beneath which they life is proof of God. — Hillary

Its a nice thought. If that is enough for you to believe in a God, and such belief enhances your life, I don't want to take that away from you. But for someone like me, I need more than that.

Then why do I see the evidence all around me and you don't? — Hillary

That should be clear right? If I'm a mathamatician, will I know what its like to be a baseball player? All of us have different experiences in life. You could try sharing that evidence if you like.

That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious. — jgill

Thank you. A cautious mind is a careful mind. It is only a logical argument, and not an evidenced argument. Still, the origin of the universe is something likely outside of evidence, and logic may be all that we ever have.

The rest of your response, really, is just that 'anything is possible' - which is not actually an argument. — Wayfarer

In almost any other case, you would be right. The difference here is that its a logical conclusion. Anything was possible is not the argument, its the end result.

And unless you have some idea what you're looking for, then there's no way to look for or assess evidence or what should be regarded as evidence. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

You could use an old story I've heard Christian's use.

A person is in their home when a neighbor walks by and tells them them the person in their house needs to leave. The house owner says, "Don't worry, God will save me."

Later, the flood hits, and the floor is flooded. A boat comes by and offers the house owner a trip out. The house owner replies, "Don't worry, God will save me."

The flood gets even worse and the owner can now only sit on their roof and wait. A helicopter flies by and offers a rope ladder to climb aboard. The house owner shouts, "Don't worry, God will save me!"

The flood over takes the house and the owner dies. When the owner arrives in heaven and meets God he states, "God, I prayed that you would save me from the flood, but you didn't stop it!"

God replies, "I sent you a neighbor, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want?!"

Generally, people don't want deep philosophical discussions. Its why apologetics works so well. Use the appropriate manner of speech with your audience, and you'll be more likely to convince them.

They might point to something like the "anthropic cosmological principle", and argue that, even though it seemed likely that the Universe should emerge from the Big Bang into a state of chaos, it actually emerged in just such a way as to enable the formation of stars, complex matter, and then living beings who can reflect on all of the above. — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer, good to hear from you as always! So, the whole point in realizing a first cause is logically necessary, is realizing there is no limitations as to what a first cause can be. We may look at the universe and believe, "Its unlikely this could happen by chance," but there's actually nothing to back that.

Probability and likelihood are based on the prior rules of causality that lead to outcomes we are aware of. We think, "Well inorganic matter doesn't suddenly organize itself into an engine, only intelligence can do that." And we're correct when prior causality is involved. But when something has no prior causality, anything can happen. Its why we readily accept that a God, possibly the most complex and powerful thing a human can imagine, was not designed, but was a first cause.

The problem is, this can also be applied to anything else. We cannot say it is unlikely that a universe formed from particles simply appearing, because there is no prior causality that would make it more, or less likely to occur.

So is a God possible. Logically, 100%. But so is anything else you can imagine that was the start of the universe. As such, a God is not logically necessary to explain the universe's origins, it is one of an infinite imagined possibilities of what could be. Despite the unlimited potential of first causes, ultimately, what actually happened are the first causes within our universe today. Those can only be gleaned by going up the chains of causality to find them.

Thus, the potential is only there when we do not know what those first causes are. But the reality of what those first causes are can only be gleaned by finding evidence.

But if God is uncaused, then such a being is not contingent and not dependent on anything. So there's an ontological distinction here - a distinction in kind - which I don't think your OP is reflecting. — Wayfarer

Perhaps my OP was written poorly then. My point is that any first cause is not contingent or dependent on anything. Meaning if I do not know the origin of the universe, but know there was a first cause, all imagined and unimagined possibilities are equally as likely. A God, not a God, some explosions, a calm entrance, eternal existence, etc. None or contingent or dependent on any prior causality (thus rules or restrictions), and so any were possible.

Nice posts Gnomon! I appreciate the citations and nice presentation. :smile:

A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause. — Relativist

Well, there is possibly more than one first cause. A first cause means the first cause in a chain of causality. It is quite possible that first causes can pop into existence even if other chains of causality exist. But, if there was nothing at one time, and then something appeared, the lack of anything else wouldn't negate that it appeared. There would of course be no outside observer watching for the first appearance of something, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it still makes a sound.

I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system. — Relativist

I'm actually not positing what first causes are. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on what are first causes, but proving one is difficult. Not that we shouldn't stop trying!

So, you were exposed and you are not willing to correct your arguments or your vague language! I understand that acknowledging your mistakes in public is very difficult and I don't expect anything more than "I am the author and you don't understand" type of come backs. — Nickolasgaspar

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man

All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

when I've clearly told you I don't claim any supernaturalism in the OP.

I didn't expect anything more. Take care and good luck as well.

-The problem is that you don't understand the critique....
You just chose this trick to avoid challenging your misconceptions. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, I've been nice, but you just seem interested in your own topic. As the author, I've informed you that you don't understand the topic. You are not entirely off base, but you're off base enough that you keep making straw men arguments. If you were honest, after I informed you that you did not understand, you would have read the other topic. Its obvious you did not. Further, I've asked you politely that if you didn't agree with the assessment that a first cause was logically necessary, to take your reply to that linked topic so we could discuss the evidence.

Your refusal to listen means this conversation is pointless. I'm not going to take the time and effort needed to reply again to someone who doesn't seem like they're listening, and seems more interested in their own voice than a conversation. If you want to have that conversation, then take what you've written and go to the other topic so this one is not derailed further. If not, we're done.

But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. — Gnomon

Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence.

First cause is not a logical necessity. — A Realist

If you believe that, please go here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 and point out why the OP there is wrong. This topic assumes agreement with the former topic.

I fully understand the argument and I stress out why it is a pseudo philosophical one. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm the author. No, you don't. I welcome critique, but when the author informs you that you do not understand the argument and you are making false assumptions, listen. This is not your time for your ego or sense of self-superiority. If you're here for that, leave. If you want to discuss the issues in a respectable manner, then seek to understand as you critique please.

-This is exactly what I pointed out in your first comment....you can not state that non existence is a state of being because its the lack of being. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not asserting non-existence is a state of being. If this is all about the semantics, I'm saying non-existence is a concept of reality, and we quantify that in relation to things that do exist.

"Space" is not assumed. Its is a quantifiable phenomenon in reality. — Nickolasgaspar

This is fine and is not in disagreement with what I'm saying.

Well god is a supernatural "first cause". But again for first cause to be a logical necessity, it needs the facts to make it necessary. As far as we can tell, its unnecessary since a state of being is the only state that it can "be". — Nickolasgaspar

What caused "state of being" to "be"? Why is there something instead of nothing? This does not avoid the logical point of the first cause. Again, if you are going to argue that a first cause is not necessary, please go to the argument I've linked and show why there.

-I asked you how can you prove these claims and you point me to a topic with the condition that I need to accept what you need to prove!!!!
Its not reasonable to demand from others to assume what you NEED to demonstrate objectively to be true. That's circular reasoning.... — Nickolasgaspar

Please read more carefully before reacting. I noted that the argument, the evidence you asked for, is in the other topic. This topic assumes you agree with the previous topic. If you do not, go there and prove it wrong. I'm not going to re-write the previous topic again. Again, I am not stating you need to accept that the previous topic is true, I'm stating that THIS topic assumes that you've accepted the previous topic as true.

And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence.
— Philosophim
-The answer is We don't know and we can not assume or draw an conclusions from something we can not investigate. If something exists for ever, (a quantum noise with fluctuations) it doesn't demand a first cause. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes it does. I just noted that in the quote. If something exists forever, then it IS the first cause. That is because there is no prior causality that determines its existence. The rest of the argument I make in the OP follows from this.

Correct an eternal energetic cosmos needs no first cause to exist. It isn't a first cause...its the cause of existence in general. — Nickolasgaspar

No, it is the first cause. Taken entirely up the causal chain, we arrive at the point where we realize something has existed forever. There is no prior causality to this. Meaning the reason for its existence is not bound by prior laws, it just "is". If this confuses you, read the link to the first topic.

-" I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary."
-Sure and I point out to you that our current scientific facts render that claim illogical since an eternal cosmos solves the problem created by the statement " non existence existing before existence" plus it is in agreement with what we measure in the cosmic background. — Nickolasgaspar

Incorrect. Current scientific fact does not negate my claim at all. You just haven't understood what a first cause was. Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility. I'm not stating its wrong, but you shouldn't state that its ascertained knowledge either. My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.

-I am not sure you understand what it means for a claim to be falsifiable. You need to present a way that we can test and objectively falsify your metaphysical claim on first cause — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, if you want to bring it up to that level that's fine. But then I'm going to ask you the same thing. How do you falsify the idea that the universe has been eternal? We can't very well travel back to the infinite past can we? In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality. We have a logical concept of it, but have never verified it exists.

-"Stop lecturing."
-I will answer ...No, I will try to see the huge problem in your reasoning and why an unnecessary artifacts is not logically necessary — Nickolasgaspar

I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand.

You are dodging the most important critique of your arguments and this is why your reply was so problematic. I hope this points help you understand the gaps in your reasoning and why this is NOT a philosophical topic. — Nickolasgaspar

No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better.

At this point, if you agree that a first cause is logically necessary, we can continue the conversation here. If you believe a first cause is not logically necessary, then please post in the linked topic that addresses all the proofs and arguments for that. At this point, I don't want to derail this topic any further. Feel free to quote my response here in that other topic as well.

As I pointed out, you don't have enough data to assume non existence. — Nickolasgaspar

Agreed, but you don't have enough data to assume that non-existence cannot be either. Space is assumed in everything we measure. What you're proposing is an ether, which has not been proven either.

After all Non existence is not a state of being so it is irrational to even assume it in your effort to introduce the supernatural. — Nickolasgaspar

No, non-existence would be a lack of being. The opposite of the state of being. I am not introducing the supernatural here, other people are. If you believe a first cause is supernatural, I'm noting it is a natural logical necessity.

Again this is not a Philosophical Topic. This is a theological one. — Nickolasgaspar

No, it is not a theological one. This is the philosophical topic of what we can logically conclude if at least one first cause is a necessary logical requirement. Origin stories are often tied in with a philosophical God, of which I use here. This is in no way theological, as I am not attributing to any one theology in this discussion.

a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality.
— Philosophim
-Can you demonstrate the possibility of such an existence?
-Can you demonstrate that an always existing Cosmic field needs such a concept? — Nickolasgaspar

See here for the proof. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 This topic assumes you agree with the proof. If you do not agree with the proof, feel free to put your response there and I'll discuss. This topic is intended with the idea that you accept a first cause is logically necessary.

And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence.

Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence.
— Philosophim
-Correct but Since our current indications (Cosmic quantum fluctuations) and logic (non existence not being a state) point to something existing eternally...why making up a first cause? — Nickolasgaspar

If something exists eternally, then it is not caused by anything prior. That itself would be a first cause. And again, your denial of non-existence is not logical, only a belief.

b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be.
— Philosophim
-Yes that is a common characteristic among explanations invoking "magic". No data...no limitations.
Its like Phlogiston, MIasma, Philosopher's Stone, Orgone Energy ...all over again.
As I said this is NOT a topic for a philosophical discussion.
Its more of having people pointing out to you your fallacies and gaps in reasoning. — Nickolasgaspar

Did you read and understand the entire OP? I think your thinking I'm making a claim that I'm not. This is a common problem among atheists who think I'm making an argument for God. Please do not let your emotions prevent you from reading and understanding the entire topic. Read the referenced topic if you believe it is illogical for me to conclude a first cause is logically necessary.

What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
— Philosophim
-Nothing, because Necessity NEEDS to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed logically. Logic is not an adequate way to argue for Necessary and Sufficient of metaphysical mechanisms of reality (ontology). We have made so many many mistakes in the past but some of us insist in the same tactics. — Nickolasgaspar

Logical necessity is demonstrated with abstract logic. Existential necessity is demonstrated objectively. I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary. What we logically conclude may not exist when tested, I think that is a given all can agree on. If you want to understand why I conclude a first cause is logically necessary, again, reference the OP where I go over that logic.

You need to explain why my poi

a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
— Philosophim
If we ignore all the fallacies and problems, there is one reason to limit adding up things in a "magical" cause...and that is Parsimony. — Nickolasgaspar

The idea I presented is the most simple and necessary explanation. You can't just claim I'm not using Occum's Razor here, please explain why you believe there cannot be more than one first cause under the logic I presented?

This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.
— Philosophim
-Correct, as I said Unfalsifiable claims can not be tested as possible or impossible mainly because they carry no limitations. Vague concepts have zero characteristic to evaluate. They are absolute declarations posing as Panacea for all mysteries.
Again this is not philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

The falsifiability of any one thing that is claimed as a first cause, is that it has something prior that caused it. The falsifiability of a thing that is claimed to have a prior cause, is that it does not. All I noted is that while there are falsifiable states, for some, it may be impossible to test. That is not due to a lack of falsifiability, it is due to a lack of information and testing capability. Concluding our limitations in the ability to test something is a fine and valid point in logic and science.

-If you design an answer without limitations then....there aren't any. Now we know particles pop in and out of existence all the time and we can observe them by viewing the affect they have on the particles of our universe.
When you use scientific knowledge to argue about your cosmology (particle with velocity) I suggest to accept all the epistemology and avoid cherry picking aspects that suit a specific narrative. Facts are facts and should be respected as a whole. — Nickolasgaspar

This argument was not done with scientific knowledge. This was simply the logical consequence of examining what a first cause would entail. Stop lecturing. You are making a lot of assumptions and mistakes by not understanding the argument. Seek to understand first please, then feel free to critique.

The rest of your points irrelevant, because you are making points without understanding the argument. Once you examine the referenced OP (and possibly comment there) and demonstrate that you also understand the OP of this argument, then we'll see if the rest of your points even need to be addressed.

Thermodynamic time is a different time as the time setting it off. — Haglund

Again, it doesn't matter. If Y is what we're looking at, and its explained by a X, Y is not a first cause. A first cause is when a Y is not explained by a prior X. And the only answer as to why the Y exists, is "It just is".

A cyclic time, say. Before real particles were realized ( the emergence of TD time) there were only virtual ones, as TD time had not taken off yet. Virtual particles oscillate in time (TD time wasn't there yet, so this was an inherent fluctuation). This is an eternal fluctuation, also happening in vacuum. — Haglund

All of this is irrelevant. Is all of this explained by something prior, or is it a first cause?

But how can this have gotten into existence? Just "not being there and then being there"? — Haglund

There is no prior reason why it gained existence. The reason why it exists, is because it does. If 2 seconds prior nothing was there, and then something appeared into existence without a prior cause, then it would be. As a first cause is logically necessary, this is what happens. No matter the desire that there be something prior, there is not. And because there is nothing prior, there are no rules or restrictions that state Y must, or could not be a particular thing. Of course, once Y exists, it has its own rules, but there are no rules or limitations that state Y must, or must not have been.

But how can thermodynamic time emerge? There gotta be a different kind of time kicking it of. — Haglund

Then there would need to be a different kind of time kicking THAT off. Then we would need a different... you get it.

A first cause needs nothing prior. The reason for its existence is, "It is." There's no other reason. Inevitably in any chain of causality you will arrive at a first cause. There will be no prior reason for its being. There will be no limitations prior to its being. It simply happened. There does not have to be anything prior, and in fact, logically cannot.

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund

Finite or infinite is irrelevant. In the case of an infinite chain of causality (if this is possible) there is still the question of why there is an infinite chain of causality versus finite. The end result is the same. "It is, because this is how it exists". There is nothing prior to explain its existence.

If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? — Gnomon

Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made.

The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. — Gnomon

If you would like to logically infer God, that is fine. But I cannot think of a philosophical argument that can necessitate God's existence any longer. Meaning we can state, "If a God existed, perhaps X would happen." But one cannot philosophically claim God is a necessary existence for creation to exist.

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no? — Gnomon

No. The first cause requires no external prior-to. It is explained by its own existence, and nothing prior. If a first cause required an external prior causality, it wouldn't be a first cause. Feel free to refer to the link in the OP for the original argument for the proof.

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon

Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more.

The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. — Gnomon

The OP that I site I prove that at least one first cause is logically necessary. As such, that means our universe is ultimately explained by those first causes. Regardless of what science postulates, this claim still stands.

Causality......first cause......science versus god. — universeness

Causality doesn't have to result in origin debates. I honestly posted this because I was seeing some people on this board have issues understanding what causality was.

How in the world did this become a theology debate?

Well most people understand God to be by very definition an omniscient entity beyond all conception, etc., etc., but here you are trying to apply the same logic to God as to other things. So are you trying to redefine God as having equals? — chiknsld

A God can't be entirely beyond conception, otherwise you couldn't conceive of a God right? If we're referring to the idea that something can exist without prior cause, but is able to interact with the universe, then why does this have to be God? If something has no prior cause for its existence, then there is no cause that necessitates it exist. I created another thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins that may explain it better.

You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?
— Philosophim

Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld

I'm still confused chiknsld. Can you expand on your point a bit more?

Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld

What do you mean?

What does it mean to be a "first cause"?
— Philosophim
"A first cause" is merely an imaginary construct. — 180 Proof

No, I don't think so. Mind demonstrating why it is? That's in the other post. This OP assumes a person has accepted the conclusions of the original post I referenced.

What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
One might conclude that reality – its physical laws – do not prohibit a system of logic which entails "a first cause". — 180 Proof

Correct. And if reality cannot prove that system of logic incorrect, then it is concurrent with reality.

Where does this leave the idea of a God?
Depends on the type of "god". Mostly, "the idea" is fictional (or merely a logical construct) like "first cause". — 180 Proof

This is just addressing the general philosophical idea of a God as a creator of rest of reality. All that would be noted is that there could be being that formed without prior cause which had the power to do so. There are no implications to any specific religion, morality, or any capabilities of this being beyond this basic defintion.

Does this argument deny that God can exist?
One seems to have nothing to do with other. — 180 Proof

I'll post it again then.

No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim

So what would it take to prove a God exists now?
Define "God" and then provide or indicate unique evidences (e.g. changes only it causes to the natural world) which are entailed by it's predicates. — 180 Proof

That's what I conclude, I think we're in agreement. The point here is, the argument I've presented eliminates the alternative philosophical arguments for God as a necessary existence that I am aware of.

it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow. — SpaceDweller

The inability or difficulty to comprehend reality does not mean reality does not exist. You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?

But gods are wise. They have creation power. Particles don't.

The particles can be eternal and still created by gods. I think. — Haglund

I never said particles necessarily had creation power. I'm just noting that a first cause can logically be anything.

If something is eternal, meaning its always been around, by definition it can't be created right? That would entail that it one point it wasn't around, which would mean its not actually eternal.

if there is possibility for multiple first causes, and possibility for them to happen even today, that doesn't get rid of question, which of these first causes was very first. — SpaceDweller

I don't think that's a question we can answer. And it may not have an answer. It could have been one or several first causes happened at the same time. It could be that multiple first causes had causal chains that blended into each other.

I think it's important to know very first cause because that's what matters for universe coming into existence.
there may be first causes happening all the time, but what caused creation, it must have been only one cause. — SpaceDweller

No, logically it does not only need one first cause. You can prove this to yourself. Answer why it is necessary that only one first cause created the universe. Whatever you come up with, I'm going to say, "But a first cause has no limitations on what it can be, you've put a limitation on what it can be. Therefore its not a first cause."

you said "We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused"
if it's another existence then within another existence must have been first cause, and if it was then what is that another existence and what was first cause of it.
it may be yet another existence, and so on... leads to infinity — SpaceDweller

No, I mean there is an actual end. There is a point in which there is no prior causality. We may misinterpret that there is, but there actually isn't if we're examining the logic of what a first cause would entail.

I think of supernatural as something that does not exist in this reality, ie. it can't be touched, seen, smelled or observed.
it exists in another reality to which we have no access. — SpaceDweller

Then it could not cause this universe. To cause something, there must be an interaction of some sort. Even then, it still doesn't change the point. Lets say that the first cause of our universe was supernatural. It doesn't mean it has to be a God. We could have supernatural particles that created the universe, then exited it. Possibility does not mean logical necessity. To prove logical necessity, you'll need evidence.

So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence.
— Philosophim

That can't happen. That's why the universe is eternal. — Haglund

But if you believe a God could just happen, then logically, this could happen as well. If you state it can't happen, then you state a God can't just happen either. I don't think that's what you want.

Even if you state the universe is eternal, there's the question of what caused it be eternal. If it the answer is, "It simply is", then the universe also simply just happened to exist eternally without any prior cause. Meaning you've described another situation in which is God is not necessary to explain the universe's origins.

Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't. — Haglund

You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask.

Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God.
— Philosophim

What can make God? — chiknsld

That's not what I proposed, that's what you proposed. I stated if there was some prior causality for God, then something made God.

And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again.

When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. — SpaceDweller

If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God.

It appears you base this upon virtual particles, because there are "gazilions" of virtual particles in the universe one may think there are gazilions first causes happening all the time. — SpaceDweller

I actually don't. Its interesting that virtual particles aligns with the logic, but I made this philosophical argument based on the premises, not on the outcome.

Otherwise multiple first causes make no sense to me, isn't "first" cause suppose to mean literary "first" rather than one of many. — SpaceDweller

A first cause is something which has no prior cause for its existence. So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence. After all, there's nothing to entail a first cause would continue to exist for any length of time either. You can't say, "That's can't happen," because that would entail there is some prior causality that would prevent this from happening.

However, when that particle appears, if it impacts something else that already exists, the first cause particle is the reason why the other particle acted a particular way. Essentially go up the chain of any examined causality, and you will eventually get to the point where a first cause is involved. That does not mean other chains of causality cannot exist separately from each other. A first cause on Pluto will not likely affect a first cause on Earth.

another existence, leads to infinity. — SpaceDweller

I did not understand what you meant by this, could you explain?

If God is supernatural being, then how is it possible to present any kind of evidence to non supernatural beings?
Only if God is not supernatural it makes sense to search for evidence. — SpaceDweller

If a God created the universe as it is today, then that means a God can interact with the world. The term "supernatural" is a descriptor when we don't know how the God did it. If a God created it, then it interacted and caused it. Therefore there should be evidence.

If you disagree with this, please clearly define what you mean by supernatural.

If we are talking about God as supernatural being, (non material being or thing) then even if there is prior reason there is no way for us to know it because it's outside anything we can see or measure. — SpaceDweller

Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God.

When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. So anything you can imagine.
— Philosophim
but there is reason for God's existence, while anything that you can imagine requires reason and first cause. — SpaceDweller

Is there a prior reason for God's existence? Note the word "prior". If there is a prior reason for God's existence, then God is not the first cause of reality. And if there is no prior reason for God's existence, then my point stands.

What do you call that Philosophim? Logical atheism? — chiknsld

Interestingly enough, its not atheism. I'm not denying the possibility that there could be a God. Logically, a God is possible. Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary. To claim a God's existence, one would need some type of evidence of that existence. The fact that there is existence, is not an argument for there being a God.

can you please name few alternatives to God? — SpaceDweller

Certainly. With the proof that there must be at least one first cause, we realize that a first cause could be anything. When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. So anything you can imagine.

Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God, or a reason for why there is existence. The conclusion is, "There simply is."

Sounds like science. Proper science attempts to disprove the hypothesis, not affirm it. If you cannot disprove the hypothesis despite your best efforts, then it stands. Another way to view it is an attempt to make an induction a deduction. An induction has premises that do not necessarily lead to a conclusion. One way to refine an induction is go through all the possible conclusions that induction could lead to, and eliminate all possibilities but the one remaining.