↪Philosophim The problem is basically in (1), where you set up an erroneous picture of causality.

Have a think about Has physics ever been deterministic? — Banno

I'm not assuming physics is deterministic though. I even mention several times that the physics of today might not have been the physics of thousands of years ago. Its because its not important to the argument. This is about barebones causality. Some state occurs because of a prior state correct? Either some prior state causes a current state, or nothing causes the current state but the fact that it simply is. While a few have stated this might be erroneous, no one has shown how it is erroneous.

Banno, I know you've been on these boards for a while and have a keen mind. I've been using a fairly basic example. Did the message that you typed simply display itself without any prior cause, or was there some chain of events that happened to make them appear? This is not claiming that it must have been a chain of events in any one particular way, only that there had to be a chain of events.

To counter it, you must type a message to display. But if you type a message to display, you are part of the chain of causality that lead to the event of your answer displayed. Can you explain the fact you can type a message and have it display on the boards and yet claim cause and effect is erroneous?

I think Philosophim's mistake is haphazardly assigning logical necessity, without question, to the "first cause", identified as Y. A better way of calling it is the given. — Caldwell

I'm not sure you understood the OP, which is perfectly fine. The first cause is not Y. Y is when we look at a state and wonder, "Does this have a prior cause for its current being?" That would be the X, which comes before Y. A first cause would be an alpha. An alpha happens when we examine a Y, and conclude there can be no X. I use the term alpha because "A" is used also as a word, and I wanted the nice representation that it is the first letter of the alphabet with nothing prior. What I conclude is that an alpha must logically exist.

Given that, re-read the OP one more time. Does the conclusion make sense, or do you see a flaw somewhere?

Whatever we can talk about, exists? Something like this, you mean:

If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must.
— Philosophim

Yikes. — Mww

Of course the idea exists. The idea of a unicorn exists. But can we discover a unicorn in reality apart from the idea? No. The idea of cause and effect exists as an idea. I clearly demonstrated it is real and well applied to reality as well from the keyboard example.

Are we at the point in the argument when you have nothing further to add or refute, so you start taking my phrases out of context and saying things like, "Yikes"? Will it be you start ignoring the points and start demeaning my intelligence? I've seen these patterns in argumentation many times, which are face saving techniques. You've been one of the better people discussing, and I don't want to see you devolve into that. There is nothing wrong with stating you cannot counter my points, but you just don't like it. I would have a lot more respect for you, and it would leave our conversation on a high note, not a low note.

But you didn't explain a complex concept - you gave the sort of use example that would help four-year-olds connect the words "cause" and "effect" with something of which they already have some intuitive grasp. You didn't actually explain anything. Not only is this inadequate to a philosophical discussion of causality, but your repeated appeal to these simplistic examples is patronizing and insulting. — SophistiCat

I'm not seeing any refutations here, which means despite your personal feelings, means the point stands. Your personal feelings or unbacked accusations do not matter in philosophy. Only points, counter points, and logic. If you are unable to counter my points, we both know they stand.

There has to be a point where I stop and say "We've found no evidence. We can't see any way of testing this hypothesis. That's the best we can do." I don't know if we are at that place yet with the QM multiverse interpretation or, say, string theory. It is my understanding that many scientists think we are. — T Clark

I call these philosophies Gandolfian theories. There are plenty of people who postulate what Gandolf from The Lord of the Rings would do in a certain situation. How was he feeling? How was he thinking? But at the end of the day, everyone forgot that Gandalf wasn't real. if he was real, we could take all of these conversations seriously, and it would probably solve a lot of problems and mysteries in life. But he's not.

For me, to find that part where I say, "There's no way of testing this hypothesis," I invent a hypothesis that cannot be tested, and try to think why I cannot test it. Take an invisible unicorn for example. Perhaps there are invisible undectable unicorns that exist. It seems in our head like it could be true. But that's nothing we can actively test in reality, because its undetectable.

If you cannot apply an idea to reality, then it is a Gandolfian idea. It can be a lot of fun to think about, but ultimately, its fiction.

Thought about it some more: the whole omnibenevolence thing seems weaker with a god that can arbitrarily change what is good whenever he wants. Technically I think it can be retained, but it isn't as meaningful as it is with a god that commands what is good because it is good because god could potentially change morality at any time and commit any act and still be omnibenevolent. A truly omnibenevolent god would command that morality cannot be changed and relinquish his omnipotence in the process. — ToothyMaw

This is exactly it. Omnibenevolence is a restraint on what we do, because there is some greater purpose than our own personal whims. An omnipotent God could decide that we should torture and eat all of our babies, but an omnibenevolent God would not.

Not like billiard balls and acorns, no, the concept abstracted from principles does not really exist. The principles themselves don’t really exist either. — Mww

Of course they exist. We're talking about them right now. Further, when they are applied to reality, reality does not contradict their application. So not only do these concepts exist, when we use them, reality does not contradict their use. Just like math right? 1 exists as a concept. When we apply it to reality, it turns out reality does not contradict its use. Now you can apply math improperly, that's true. That doesn't deny its existence either. It only denies its misapplication. What you can't do is deny that cause and effect exist at this point. What you could do, is make an argument showing that I'm misapplying it. That may be the case, but I need a good argument for that to be true.

Somewhere in that chain the empirical mechanisms....physical causality.... necessarily become exhausted. — Mww

So at some point there is a part in the chain that has no prior cause? That's what I've been describing in the OP this entire time. That's not a counter, that fits the conclusion of the argument.

Not counter. Satisfy. By finite regressive causality. Like I said. You claim a time and place for an alpha but not the when or the what — Mww

I do not claim any time, place, when or what an alpha is incepted. All I am claiming is that at least one alpha must exist along the chain of causality. In fact, it concludes from the argument that it is possible that there would be more than one alpha, and that they could appear anytime. There could be many alphas and many chains of causality in existence that stay separate, or intertwine. It is not about the nature of any specific chain. It is a logical conclusion about the chains themselves.

It is reasonable to logically grant, but it is an empty proof, in that the proof of empirical conditions is not served by merely logical conclusions. — Mww

Formulas are often not provable by application, but by logic. I can conclude that there is no end to the placeholder of a number. 10, 100, 1,000 etc. But it can never be empirically proved. Do you want to deny the idea that there are an infinite amount of numbers based on the fact it cannot be empirically proved. If you do not, then you are accepting a proof based purely on logical consequence. That is the form of my argument. If you accept one proof of logical consequence, then I see no logical reason you would not accept my proof of logical consequence. Unfamiliarity with the logical proof, or displeasure at the idea is not a valid reason.

Finally, this is not an argument from authority. We have the terms in front of us. We can challenge the logic of the terms, and the logic of their application. Feel free to continue to try.

Now you first need to define this nature of existence in order to argue about it. — Nickolasgaspar

Certainly. Cause and effect are measures of states over time based on interactive forces. A very simple and real world example is when you press you keys on the keyboard to type a response. The keys on the keyboard do not press themselves, you do. When we see your message on the screen, we can know the prior state of you pressing the keys caused that to be.

First of all causality doesn't exist. Its an abstract concept we as observers use to identify the order between interactions among entities and forces. Causality is a real phenomenon enabled by the EXISTENCE of those entities and forces. — Nickolasgaspar

If you don't believe it exists, simply explain to me how it is that you did not cause the message that you typed. Of course, you'll have to type that out to prove it, so that's pretty much out. Still, give it a try if you think you can. What is a phenomenon in your mind? I find its a word that needs a hard definition to be useful in a conversation.

This is what energy does.....produces work. Work causes things. — Nickolasgaspar

So, a cause and an effect?

It is not so much flawed as inadequate. Your persistent examples of billiard balls are the sort one might use to explain what "cause" and "effect" mean to a four-year-old. — SophistiCat

An inadequate argument is a flawed argument. I was a teacher for five years. If you can take a complex concept and break it down so that even a four year old can understand, it is one of the greatest accomplishments you can do. Thank you. Now that I know you understand the point fully, I expect that if you find a flaw, it will be simple to point out. If you cannot, then I'll know that it wasn't because you didn't understand it, but that you were unable to counter it. I await to see if you are able to do so.

Before I address your most recent reply, I wanted to apologize for a such a late response! — Bob Ross

Not a worry! It isn't as if we are typing a few paragraphs. A quality analysis is worth the wait!

With respect to the first sentence, I would like to ask: what laws are you referring to? Newtonian laws? — Bob Ross

By laws, I do not mean any specific law. I mean a consistency in the way existence works. One potential argument against cause and effect, is that we cannot prove that cause and effect will work tomorrow, or that they worked before recorded history. We can assume, but its not provable. That being said, if there is an argument against this, I have a counter point ready. Before getting into the messy details, I try to set things up in a way that gives a clear picture of where I'm going first. So feel free to dig further if you wish.

You seem to be inducing a basic principle from which to deduce, which makes perfect sense — Bob Ross

Yes, you have it. I believe it is a reasonable induction, but it is without question an induction. In short, I find it impossible to function without induction. The only thing we can do is figure out which inductions are more reasonable than others. The paper ends up declaring that. Regardless, if you do find it an unreasonable induction, I would ask a more reasonable alternative be provided. Doubt for its own sake doesn't lead anywhere.

I genuinely would like to know to what theories are you referring? Or, and this will be my last conjecture, are you referring to infinite series summations (and such)? — Bob Ross

I am referring to mathematical induction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#:~:text=A%20proof%20by%20induction%20consists,case%20n%20%3D%20k%20%2B%201.

Basically think proving formulas. If A is true, and B is true, C will always be true. But we will never be able to actively prove C is true by experience, because we cannot possibly test all C's in existence. C is logically necessary, but is ultimately an induction based on the idea that the truth of A and B will always hold no matter the situation.

To sum this section up, I will would say that, although you are totally right in utilizing the knowledge that we do know, I would say your statement “causality must either continue indefinitely, or definitely” to be, as you admit in the following sentence, to be only a given certainty in terms of what is closest to our lives — Bob Ross

Absolutely correct. And I understand your point about taking logic too far. :) If you can point out where I do, please do. I am interested in getting to the truth of the matter, and only other people can point out my blind spots.

Just like how I deem it impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I would also (for the same reasons) deem it impossible to truly know “Logic”. — Bob Ross

While it may be impossible to truly conceive of true nothingness, I find the opposite to also be true. I cannot truly conceive of an absence of nothingness. In every thing that we know of, there is space between things. Every time we drill down, we find a piece that makes up another piece, but there is clearly space between them. Is that space also filled with other smaller things? Is space truly all one thing that touches everything else with no room for anything else to fit?

I only mention this to bring back to the idea of doubting an induction, but replacing it with a more reasonable one. I do not deny that it may be impossible for true nothingness to exist, but I find it also impossible to deny that it might. The fact that we can doubt one, does not eliminate the possibility of the other. To this, I feel the OP holds up in both scenarios. In the case where nothingness can exist, we have the instance of a self-explained entity forming. But in the case where there is no space, we have the question, "What caused existence to be without any space between it?" It does not escape the chain of causality question, and ends in the same answer as the OP.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the extension of this principle, which is already on fragile grounds when extended into the quantum realm, to that which is beyond our basic understand of all things (namely space/time fabric) greatly increases my skepticism and uncertainty on the issue at hand. So much, in fact, that I am hesitant to grant the idea that it is even useful to derive any concepts from any sort of greatly extended forms of induction (at least, ontologically speaking). — Bob Ross

I have heard this from a few posters. How exactly does the quantum world not have cause and effect? If it does not have cause and effect, then is it not simply an alpha? In which case, it seems the OP still stands.

Which means, as you said, that the term ‘self-cause’ doesn’t really make any sense anymore — Bob Ross

Correct. Something cannot cause itself, because then we are left right back to the question, "What caused it to cause itself?" So I find ascribing self-cause results in a contradiction, so should not be used.

However, as hopefully I am demonstrating, there is still a level of explanation that I don’t think you are entirely addressing. — Bob Ross

I hope I addressed it. If not, please point it out!

if complex objects are merely constructed of smaller objects, then wouldn’t that be their explanations? — Bob Ross

Correct. That is why I believe complex objects cannot be defined as alphas. A complex object could be composed of alphas, but once a complex object exists, the cause of its existence is its constituent parts. So it could be that any mixture of alphas and Y's with X's could have mixed together to make a complex component. The key is that an alpha really is no different from any other existence (in our universe) beyond the fact that its inception had no prior cause. Now it could be the case that a bunch of alphas incept in such a way that they form a complex object. The reason for the objects formation is the combination of those alphas. But the reason those alphas incepted in the formation of a complex object, has no prior cause. The complex object is not an alpha itself. This is I think the only way that the proposal stays logical and consistent.

those smaller parts are actually made of smaller ones, so, in a sense, the smaller parts of my hand are actually complex objects compared to its smaller parts (and so on and so forth!). Hence, I would argue, we end up with explanatory-collapsibility. I would say that we arbitrarily, within a relative scope, defining my hand to exist with respect to its smaller parts (objects), but I can also shift the scope to be of my cells to its smaller parts (objects) and the cells would now become the complex object. As far as I can tell, if one zooms in or out (so to speak), the explanations begin to cave in on themselves (providing little explanatory power the closer or farther away one goes). — Bob Ross

Yes, you get it! The problem you are proposing is the exact problem of the OP. And according to the conclusion of the OP, there must be a point in which the chain of causality ends. What the OP cannot answer, is what that specifically is.

Not to reiterate, but, again, what is the sufficient reason for a self-explained entity (first cause) to be indivisible (other than the fact that semantically speaking it is pre-defined as such)? Again, I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don’t see how that doesn’t require a reason. — Bob Ross

Your questions are all fair. It would be because if an self-explained entity was divisible, the reason for its existence would be the combination of those divisible parts. This is the complex object being addressed again. A complex object may be composed of many alphas, but a complex object itself cannot be an alpha, because its existence is caused by the alphas (and possibly non-alphas) that make it up.

Absolutely fantastic questions that have helped me shape the points on the edge of my mind into something more concrete. Thank you again, and continue to follow up as needed.

All interesting points. I don't see why anything you said isn't a possibility. Fantastic conversation, and I loved the poems!

I think wisdom is when someone has knowledge, applies it correctly to a situation with the expectation of a particular outcome that occurs.

To contrast this with intelligence. I believe intelligence is the ability of someone without knowledge to quickly find, and continue to test what they should apply to a situation to arrive at a particular outcome.

Wisdom deals with solving the problems of the known. Intelligence deals with solving the problems of the unknown.

No, it appears from the successful QFT that all is field. The quantum 'vacuum' is the best candidate for the First Cause, its energetic points having a value at every point, which is all that's meant by a field. Its behavior matches the math model based on harmonic oscillators. The elementaries come forth directly as the quanta of field excitations, as field arrangements, not as any new substance different from field. So, here we have something to go on to confirm the philosophy of the one First Cause that cannot not be. — PoeticUniverse

It very well could be the alpha. But, there are a few things to understand about QFT. First, its tenants are not proven yet. It is very much theory, and a theory based on math. Second, a "field" is a mathmatical representation, much like a wave. But a wave in water is still composed of molecules, and emptyness between those molecules. For fields, we have electron fields. Yet they are still composed of individual electrons, and "nothingness" between them.

I have no doubt at a larger scale, it functions like a field. But, this does not mean its proven that there is nothing more granular if you examine that field at a closer level.

Since there is no evidence whether it is possible to determine the truth or falseness of the multiverse interpretation of QM, should that interpretation be given serious consideration as a scientific theory? — T Clark

In short, no. But that theory might inspire funding into trying to see if its possible to prove multiverse theory. You would absolutely need to prove multiverse theory first. But humans are often times fueled by dreams that lead us to truths we would never find otherwise.

Divine command theory is a way of avoiding the problem of evil, not solving it. The point that I used above is the same counter to divine command theory. If God commands that we torture our babies and eat them, that is a law. No one would think that this was good, much less "the perfect good."

But at this point I think we've both made our cases. I've pointed out you're not really talking about a God that is omnibenevolent, and given several reasons pointing that out. You believe for your part, that might makes right, and that omnibenevolent is simply an all powerful being making rules for others to follow.

Now that we understand each other, there's really nothing else to be said. Hopefully you'll get some others to chime in and present their own views.

I think the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is meaningless because I believe it is not possible to demonstrate if it is true or false, but, I can't prove it is not possible. Given that, what is the status of the multiverse interpretation. — T Clark

Ok, I think I see what you're going for. In this case, I would say you would know what it would take to prove multiverse theory true or false, (humanity discovering an answer), you just believe it is impossible that humanity will ever have the capability to do so.

This is really a combined question with a premise.

a. It is impossible for humanity to ever discover if multiverse theory is true or false.
b. Consequently, the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is meaningless.

As some could quibble with "meaningless", lets change it to "unprovable".

If A is true, then b is true by consequence. But it could happen that tomorrow mankind discovers multiverse theory is true or false. Therefore this proposal is more of a prediction such as, "Tomorrow the sun will rise again." As such, the only thing we can do in this case is wait. Maybe humanity will discover the truth about multiverse theory, and maybe they won't.

I think I mean 'spontaneously' as instead of the First Cause having always been—as a true Fundamental that never gets made or appears, being unmakeable and unbreakable due to having no parts. I favor the latter case as mandatory because the alternate of 'Nothing' is not the case nor could 'Nothing' even have being or even be meant as an opposite option. — PoeticUniverse

Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it.

But to your point, I am also not denying such a fundamental could also be an existent alpha. That is perfectly possible, but so would an alpha appearing for five seconds, then disappearing without a trace.

1) Can a statement be true or false if it is not possible to determine which it is, even in principle? — T Clark

I want to clarify this. Do you mean we have an idea that we can conceivably prove to be true or false, but we don't currently have the means to do it? Or do you mean an idea that we have no conceivable means of even trying to prove it true or false?

So for example, someone might say, "Tomorrow I may die." In this case, you have to wait until tomorrow to come for you to figure out if you do indeed die tomorrow.

However, if I say, "Tomorrow I will die in my sleep.", will you ever be able to confirm that? I'm assuming of course that in your sleep you would not be conscious of your death. So if you died, you would never know. But lets say you don't die tomorrow, but go into a deep coma. You then die the following day. In this case, it was impossible for you to confirm whether your statement was true or false.

No hard disagreement here. I think this is easy to understand.

Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power.
— Philosophim

I have no idea what that means. — Bartricks

And that's the entire problem your argument runs into. Morality is a set of constraints on what we should or should not do, independent of our power. An omnipotent being could change it, or defy it, but then it wouldn't be perfectly good. That is the part you are missing.

God makes morality. — Bartricks

Then God is not an Omnibenevolent being. Its a being that simply creates laws for others to live by. If God says, "It is good to torture your babies and eat them," then that's a law. It doesn't mean God is perfectly good. What is good is independent of God, that is why God is omnibenevolent. God follows what is good, despite being all powerful.

You are speaking in terms that are not omnibenevolent. You are saying morality is "might makes right". If you create an all powerful being that makes rules for humanity live by, and punishes them because that's what the God wants to do, that's not an omnibenevolent being. It would be just as disingenuous as if I started limiting God's omnipotence or omniscience. If you do that, you're not understanding that the God in the problem of evil is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

It seems that an existent as a First Cause can’t come into being spontaneously, for the Possibility of this happening would be even more Fundamental, making for untold numbers of First Causes appearing. — PoeticUniverse

Just checking by what you mean by spontaneously. If you mean "By some numeric random chance", you are correct. We can't put numbers or predictions of a things appearance that has no prior cause.

I have not done that. God is omnibenevolent and there is no problem of evil. Clear? I am not denying that God has any of those properties. — Bartricks

Yes, you are denying the property of omnibenevolent. Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power. Might makes right means you presume there is no morality. If you presume no morality, you have an omnipotent, omniscient being. That could just as easily be a devil that enjoys torturing even the innocent for their own pleasure.

You seem to want to say

A good, all powerful being would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. — Bartricks

And you are forgetting that an omnipotent being would also not have to cause suffering to create good. An omnipotent being doesn't have to punish evil. It can simply change evil without causing suffering.

You also seem to be assuming that only your perception of what is good is correct. The point of introducing Christianity was to show you there is a view point of a God that is good that is far better than your own. If you believe Christianity was invented by man, then that means there are people who have a view point of good that is far better than your own. The desire to inflict suffering upon others for its own sake, even upon people who have done wrong, is a human desire, and considered evil by many people.

You are describing what is omnibenevolent as something less than perfect. Which means its not omnibenevolent. Which means you have not solved the problem of evil.

I have made an argument. To be clear: if there is evidence of God's existence, then that evidence is evidence of our guilt. — Bartricks

Incorrect. That is evidence that if a God exists, it cannot be a combination of the 3 omni's. What you must show is that a God could be a combination of the 3 omni's, and not have it be a contradiction. But as I've demonstrated, a perfectly good being would not cause undue suffering on the wicked, especially if they did not remember or know what it was they did wrong. Your argument is not sufficient enough to fit omnibenevolence, so it does not solve the problem.

You seem just to be ignoring the case I have made. What I have said about the relationship between morality and God was not to address the problem of evil, but to correct the idea that morality operates as some kind of external constraint. — Bartricks

The title of your topic is "Solving the problem of evil". The problem of evil is a very specific problem defined by the contradiction inherent in the three omni's in one being. If you remove omnibenevolence as a restraint, then all you have is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Boom, problem avoided.

But avoiding the problem is not solving the problem.

When it comes to the problem of evil, I have shown that it involves a presumption of innocence. — Bartricks

No. As stated earlier, if you know about Christianity, in it God sacrifices themselves to forgive the sins of humanity. He declares them all guilty, but forgives them. Are you saying this is evil?

If you are trying to redefine what good is, you're not going to make that case. Revenge is not considered the height of virtue. Forgiveness of the repentant is. Also, lets say that we are guilty of some crime we committed, but we do not remember it. In what world would that be considered just? At that point, you just want to hurt something for your own satisfaction of destroying something. That's pretty darn evil.

I think you're confusing the philosophical puzzle of the problem of evil, with your own desire to redefine what is good. Perhaps a better topic title would be called "Redefining evil". But at this point, I think we've strayed from solving the problem of evil.

I already have something to stand on, and I don’t care about one X. — Mww

Well, the argument does. If you're trying to say causality doesn't really exist, but I can post even one instance that it does, then my point stands.

That said, fingers cause the keys to be struck, but do not on that account alone, cause the words. — Mww

Right. But they're part of the causal chain correct? Did you smash your keys with an ax, or a feather, or your fingers? It doesn't really matter. The proof is in the fact that those words would not have appeared on the screen without some cause. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to logically grant?

How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads? — Mww

I don't see where this inevitably leads at all. Please point out where this leads to, and also point out why this counters the OP.

It has energy and so it can't be still, else naught would have further come forth. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe. It might also just be inert floating amongst other things. I would assume that some came into existence with momentum however, as otherwise we wouldn't have our current universe.

Random action, since no design could have been imparted? Or some default for the simplest? — PoeticUniverse

Once a thing forms into existence, it could very well follow rules and patterns. In this, it might not be random. I think only true randomness can happen when there is no prior cause, or when an alpha appears. Once its appeared, we could try to figure out how it functions.

How much of it would there be? — PoeticUniverse

Great question. This is again, completely random. That means it means they could appear anywhere between just above 0% frequency, to just below 100% frequency. Calculating this would be difficult in the fact that you mentioned, which is what are comparing the frequency of this by? Space? Nothingness? Simply our universe? I don't think we can do that. So in the end I'm not sure we can calculate the frequency that something which is truly random could appear.

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time.
— Philosophim

I think you would benefit from doing some reading about causation (and disabusing yourself of the notion that there is only one kind and everyone agrees on what it is), explanation, grounding. When you have all these mixed up as you do, you end up with the kind of muddle that you have in your OP. — SophistiCat

I am not going to go into the entire literary history of philosophy of causation for a forum post to a general audience. I am using the general understanding of cause and effect with precision given as needed. If people have asked for clarification on what cause and effect means for the OP, I have given it with clear examples and evidence. If they countered these, examples they could give me definitive evidence showing it is flawed.

If you have done all of that reading and can see the flaws in the examples, feel free to point them out. Confidence that the OP is wrong does not logically prove it. So far those challengers have abandoned the argument after I've made a counter point. Which is fine. Many people get frustrated when they realize they cannot counter a particular point, and revert to insults, talking down, and ignoring that counter point in their follow up posts. The good ones love the challenge, and make great conversation. Sometimes, they win, and I admit to it. Those are the real philosophers and thinkers that make my heart race, set my mind alight, and force me to things I've never thought of before.

Yeah....about that. What caused the words? And PLLL—EEEEEZZZEEE...don’t say my fingers caused the words. Finite causal regression writ large. — Mww

Your fingers. :D

Am I wrong? Simple things are often all that are needed to prove a point. Demonstrate to me that your fingers were not one X in the chain that caused those words to appear on the screen, and then you'll have something to stand on. For the purposes of my OP, I merely need an X, or a prior existence that causes the Y we're analyzing. To show that the OP is wrong, you have to show that X doesn't exist for anything. If I can show even one X, then the point stands.

Also, alphas are not sacred. If you think this is about religion, it is not. If anything, this argument is likely an incredibly harsh counter against religion. But I find when people start worrying about where the argument is going, versus worrying about the argument itself, they make lot of mistakes in reasoning.

But an omnibenevolent being would never choose to do wrong, even if they could.
— Philosophim

I never said otherwise. My point is that an omnipotent being determines what's right and good. My point wasn't that they will sometimes do what is wrong and bad. — Bartricks

If you are claiming that what is good is what a powerful being decides, then you are not using the word omnibenevolent to describe that being. At that point, you are removing the idea of good and evil entirely, and simply stating that a being's judgement of what is just goes because they have the power to do so. This does not solve the problem of evil. The problem of evil assumes God is also omnibenevolent, meaning while God could change what is good and evil, God does not.

If you're not including the 3 omni's, you're not talking about the problem of evil. At that point you're simply proposing another type of God. In your case, its simply a powerful God that decides what is right and wrong through its might. I find there are other problems with this, but again, its not the problem of evil. To confront the problem of evil, you need to explain why all 3 omnis, which are defined as having zero limits, can coexist in a God of creation while there still being evil in the world they created.

Consider: if your mother hates herself for what she did, that would be good, not bad, would it not? — Bartricks

No. I don't want her to hate herself. I want her to learn and be a person that would never do that again. Emotions themselves are not moral or immoral. It is the actions we do despite those emotions that make it moral or immoral.

Still, it remains that no singular object of perception, in and of itself, can inform as to its cause, nor that it even had one. — Mww

Perception combined with proper science can however. What caused the words that you wanted to type appear on your screen? Are you saying there was no cause? Computer science would say otherwise, that there are clear inputs that cause that output to appear on your screen. It can be easy for us to get lost in the abstract, and forget the very things we use daily. Open a door. Now shut the door. What caused the door to open? What caused the door to close? Can you honestly say there was no cause? Of course not.

To clarify once again, we can look for cause and effect, and not find any, be inaccurate in our assessment, but also be accurate in our assessment. Accurate cause and effect is testable and repeatable, because it accurately describes reality. That is why it is not a false dichotomy. Though fist bump for jinx on using false dichotomy!

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. — EricH

I think you misunderstood the OP. The OP concludes that there must exist things which have no prior explanation for their existence. If there is nothing prior to the sub-atomic level, then it is an alpha that I've been showing must exist. Do one more review on the OP and you'll see you are agreeing with me if you claim this to be true.

All I am saying is that you do not know if what you are describing is actually an alpha, or if we have not simply discovered what the prior cause is yet.

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause? — EricH

To answer a simple philosophical question. Is there infinite regression or finite regression. It turns out its a false dichotomy. I find solving puzzles like this fascinating! I have some follow up thoughts on what it means if there alpha's are logically necessary in the post above. Feel free to chime in your thoughts.

What is the nature of the First Cause, given that it has no input? — PoeticUniverse

That is an interesting topic! And perhaps one I'll make after this dies down. There are a few claims that could be made that I think are interesting.

1. There is no reason for an alpha to to last any period of time. It could exist from X to infinite seconds before not existing anymore.
2. There is no reason to believe there is only one alpha.
3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. Anything that can be divided or seen as parts is not an alpha, but a complex object. Now it is possible that two alphas could form or collide at the exact combination needed to make a new object. Considering the odds, it would seem like a ridiculously low chance that anything complex would form.

I think these are the most interesting. Do you think I'm off in my musings here?

You're putting the cart before the horse. An omnipotent being determines what is right and good, for otherwise they would not be omnipotent. — Bartricks

But an omnibenevolent being would never choose to do wrong, even if they could. That's part of the contradiction of the problem of evil. if God chooses to do evil, then they aren't omnibenevolent, period. Omnibenevolent is not talking humanity level good. We're talking about perfection level good.

Because our source of insight into what is good and right is our reason and it is from that information that we can glean something about God's character. — Bartricks

Are we omnibenevolent? No. We are imperfect beings that do a lot of immorality for our personal self satisfaction. Revenge for example.

A good person doesn't care unduly about what evil people do to one another; doesn't give them the same attention they give to the innocent, and so on. — Bartricks

No, you're wrong here. Sometimes evil people need special attention from good people. Sometimes good people can help a person who is being selfish, or angry at the world for nothing, come around to understanding they don't have to be that way.

A good person does not indiscriminately want others to be happy - not if you consult your reason. — Bartricks

No. I don't want them being happy off of doing the wrong thing. I don't want them profiting off of doing the wrong thing. What I want is for them to turn their life around, and do the right thing. If you have any knowledge of Christianity, God essentially dies for all of humanities sins. Not for all the good people, but for the bad people too. So we have examples of Gods doing great things for bad men. There are also examples of people helping to reform people with an evil streak in their heart in life. I'm sure an omnibenevolent God would want the same.

It is no more than God communicating to us that He wants some to come to harm for harm's sake. And that does not imply God is bad, for the people in question are gits. — Bartricks

No, that is revenge for personal satisfaction. Why would an all powerful omnibenevolent being want revenge. More to the point, far more important than this conversation, is your desire that hurting people for revenge is somehow right. Before you think I don't understand, I do. A part of me absolutely despises my own mother. She betrayed me when I was younger for nothing more than spite. Every so often, I think about what she did to me, and the long term ramifications of that stupid spite, and I can't help but feel hate and wish ill on her. And no, its not some teenage angst. I have permanent scars on my body that I will never be rid of.

She's an alcoholic. I had the desire to never see her again. But I decided to reach out anyway. We talk every few weeks, and I see her every few months. We've talked about the past. I help her with little things. She's learned, and grown a little. In some ways she may never, as long as she stays on that bottle. There is still a part of me that will always hate her. But I choose not to. And am I a better person for it? Yes. And is she a better person for it? Yes. Surely an omnibenevolent God would do greater than both of us.

Not what you said. Y has a cause, even if the cause is unknown.

That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha.
— Philosophim — Mww

As I stated before, you were the second person to interpret that the wrong way. That tells me I need to revise this section to be more clear. The way I clarified it in my last post was the way it was always originally intended. Of course it would be silly for me to say something has no cause, but also has a cause. The "unknown" cause was meant to mean, "You do not know whether Y has a cause."

Which is fully on me for not thinking the sentence through. I can see how you would think "unknown cause" means there is definitely a prior cause that we don't yet know about, so no worry. Now that you understand the way its intended to be read, you can see the contradiction never existed.

because the topic ultimately reduces to the principle of cause and effect, which in and of itself, because it is a only a mode of human cognition, has nothing to do with experience. Experience is certainly required for its objective validity, but not for its constructions a priori, re: Hume’s mistake. — Mww

I am also under no obligation to follow Kant's definitions of knowledge. I do not agree that you can know about cause and effect apart from experience. The idea boils down to whether there is a state prior to another that caused that secondary state to be. This is something that exists in reality, external to our construction of it. All you have to do is type a reply on your keyboard, press "Post Comment" and you will have caused the effect of responding to my message. Our language that we use to describe cause and effect can only exist because the world exists with cause and effect independent of our realization of it.

I already explained several times, including in the remainder of the post that you quoted. I don't feel like spending more of my time on this. — SophistiCat

Assuming that the world regresses infinitely into the past, if there is an explanation for that, that explanation doesn't in any way negate the premise. Nor does the absence of an explanation. — SophistiCat

When you stated premise, I assumed you spoke about the OP. Our previous conversations seemed to lean to the idea that you found the solution uninteresting, but sound. So if the premise of the OP is not negated, I assumed you had no issue.

"Cause" is sometimes used in a loose sense, synonymous with explanation, reason, grounding. In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — SophistiCat

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time. The cause is the reason for the effect. There is not a false equivocation here, and entirely intended in the argument. If this had presented a problem to the argument, I did not feel you pointed this out properly.

I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety. — Artemis

Understood.

Nahhhh.......you couldn’t pay me enough to agree with that, if I’m being honest. The same thing cannot both have an unknown cause and no cause at all. — Mww

I'm not claiming a thing can have both an unknown cause and no cause at all. That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha. Someone else had this same confusion earlier. I told them if it makes it easier, a Y that is proved to have an X could be called a "why" (Because of X). A Y is merely a state that has the question of whether there is an X or not. No X, alpha. Has X, why. Does that make it more clear?

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief.
— Philosophim

And with that little tidbit of philosophical wonderment.....I’m out. I recognize a dead horse when I see one. Sorry. — Mww

I clearly pointed out why it is not a priori knowledge. If you cannot refute it, my point stands. And if you wish to leave it that way, that is fine.

but it is not knowledge.
— Philosophim

It's Kantian knowledge. — frank

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience. You cannot conclude that everything must have a prior explanation for it being based upon experience, because you have not experienced every prior cause to every prior thing. Not that there aren't flaws with Kant's theory of knowledge, nor am I using Kant's model, but you haven't accurately ascribed what a priori knowledge is.

I'm not overly concerned with mattering — frank

Then your point will not matter.

You need the answer to come from the dismantled clock. It's not there. — frank

This sentence is nonsense. If you want your point to matter and make sense, use your example and point out where the OP is wrong.

everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof. — Artemis

I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g. — EricH

There is a difference between not knowing if there is a cause, versus knowing there is not a cause. At one time atoms were thought to be the smallest indivisible objects in the universe. This was not knowledge, but belief. If we learn from history, we should avoid doing that again here.

People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments. — EricH

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. — EricH

Statistical regularity can only occur because there is an underlying rule which produces said effects. Just ask yourself, what causes this statistical regularity? Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. Its a Y, but we do not know if that Y has an X, or an Alpha.

Arguably, even if we discovered an entity which was self-explained, we might not be able to actually prove it. There would always be the question of whether there was something prior to it. Further, a self-explained entity joins causality once formed. We could use that causality to move backwards and predict that some event caused the alpha, when in reality, we are only predicting that there must have been some prior force to generate its existence.

That is why this argument is important. It may be impossible to ascertain by evidence if something is self-explained or caused by something prior. Perhaps some alphas would fit into a provable context, but I could see just as many not. With a logical certainty that alphas must exist, perhaps it can help us ascertain reality better when we arrive at situations that appear to occur without prior cause.