It is trivial to conclude that none of these alternatives admits of a prior state, since that would require an additional, unaccounted state. Nothing interesting follows from this, nor is the first cause hypothesis any different from the other two in this regard. — SophistiCat

Perhaps you can't think of anything interesting that follows from this, but I can. The idea that first cause entities are logically necessary is fascinating to me. This makes it more than a supposition, but a sound logical conclusion to follow. What does that entail for our universe? This leads to entirely knew philosophical threads that have this idea as a logical basis to start.

I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. Each of the alternatives is a brute fact in this presentation, since there is no reason/explanation/justification for whichever one of them actually obtains (at least not in this context). — SophistiCat

That's likely just a semantic distinction then. If you want to call a first cause a "brute fact", that's fine. My question of course is why does that brute fact exist? In which case we can say, "It doesn't have anything prior that caused it to be, it just is." So I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I'll try, an argument adapted from a book. The phenomenon is blowing an old tree stump out of the ground with some dynamite. Question: what exactly, causes the dynamite to explode? Informally, lots of things. But formally? Exactly? Care to take swing at it?

The idea is that the idea of cause is neither simple nor adequate for exact purposes. It's just a useful adoption of language to the world. But nothing of the world itself. And if you think it is, then show us on — tim wood

Sure, good example. What you're talking about is measurement of scale. I've written an old post that goes into a theory of knowledge and breaks down that very type of question. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 Suffice to say, its too complex for me to go over in this topic. So for my part, I am completely confident that cause and effect are more than convenient adoption of language, but real world applications that are expressed within expanding or contracting contexts. Again, I would love to speak on it more in depth, but I would derail my own thread!

Agree, scientists have already overcome and shown that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition that works well in our daily life but it breaks as you go macro or micro...
Can we common-mortals understand and comprehend this? NO. It requires strong and strict study on physics as well as "playing" a lot with new technologies that allow you to interact and exercise with the counter-intuitive micro quantum world.
This reality is only accessible to few people in the world. It is ineffable using current language and is only represented by formulas and mathematical language that "represent" those counter-intuitive laws.
And this ineffable reality is as real as it is the mobile phone and the TVs you have today in your homes. They work thanks to scientists understanding this counter intuitive reality. — Raul

Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. The idea that only a few people can comprehend this is, in my mind, an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality. Are you saying there are times in physics where a force can be applied and there is literally zero affect, both on the applying force, and receiving force? I would like to see that.

so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause
— Olivier5

Of course there is not such thing as "uncaused cause", — SpaceDweller

According to my OP, it is actually the opposite that is true. It is impossible for there not to be an uncaused cause. Feel free to critique the OP and see if you can find a hole.

Check me on my reduction: the only necessary existence is something that exists, because it exists? If that’s correct, it’s merely Aristotle revisited: that which exists, exists necessarily. That doesn’t say that which exists necessarily doesn’t have a cause. — Mww

No, that's not what I'm saying. There is no necessary existence. It is simply that if we are to think about the end logic of causality, it is necessary that there must be a place in the chain that has no prior explanation for its existence.

The best one can say is, that which exists without at least a logical reason is utterly incomprehensible to us as humans, whose intellect is entirely predicated a priorion the principle of cause and effect. — Mww

I've heard things like this before, and I consider it wrong. If I can logically conclude that it must exist, then it must. At that point, I can start thinking about the logical consequences of such an existence. Knowing that such things must exist in the universe we inhabit may allow us to consider threads of thought we may have dismissed. Man has always tried to grasp the incomprehensible. At one time, the idea of space was outside of man's intellectual and physical capabilities. Theories spring to ideas which can then be tested. To me, this is an essence of philosophy. To reach for the things just out of our grasp, and see if we can actually reach it.

If there is something said to exist within the universe necessarily given from the fact of its reality, why not the universe itself? If that something’s cause isn’t infinitely regressive, why should the universe’s? The cause of the cause is not at issue; the subject here is a given real existence, whether a something, or a something known as “universe”. — Mww

At this point I think you've strayed too far from the OP. The argument is that there essentially is the possibility of infinite regressive causality, or finite regressive causality. Yet the argument concludes that even when we propose an infinite regressive causality, it is impossible to escape that fact that if it is infinitely regressive in causality, that there can be no outside reason for this, but the fact of its own existence.

There are certain theories of math and philosophy that have succeeded by showing certain things are impossible, thus leaving us with a known alternative. That's essentially what the argument is doing.

The following points come to mind (in addition to a possible critique of causality itself):

1) It seems to me that if there can be such a thing as an uncaused cause, then there could be several such tings. There is no apparent reason to limit the number of "uncaused causes" to 1, so there could be a large number of "first causes", if those are defined as "uncaused causes".

2) If the law of reaction is true, then whenever object A has an effect on object B, B also has an effect on A. Therefore, a "cause" is a two-way street, an interaction, so there can be no such thing as an uncaused cause (at least if the law of reaction is universally true). — Olivier5

1. Nailed it. I find this exciting, and leads to new questions. Does this mean multiverse for example, is no longer a plausible theory, but almost logical certainty? A self explained existence does not need to exist forever. If any lifespan has an equal chance of forming, then wouldn't the universe be full of entities popping in and out of existence?

2. Almost correct. An uncaused cause has no prior reason for its existence. But what follows from its entering into existence would affect itself as well, yes. I would go so far to propose that a self explained entity could be completely indistinguishable from entities around it, besides the fact that its origin did not rely on anything else but its own existence. Proving an entity is self explained if it appeared and blended within a sea of existence that had already formed might prove impossible, as we might simply attribute the laws that are already around us on it, and merely assume things came before it, that in fact did not. I encourage you to let your imagination run wild here, its quite fun!

We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl

Lets remember what odds are first however. Odds are a predictive model we use when we are limited in knowing particular information. Lets use an easier model to digest, as odds work the same no matter the complexity. Take a deck of playing cards. I know there are 52 cards. I'm going to draw a card after shuffling, without looking at the cards. There is a 4 out of 52 chance that the card drawn is a jack. We know this, because we know what the cards are made of, and we know the rules of drawing the deck. Probability is based on the knowable parts, and the knowable outcomes. It is a way to predict when we cannot observer the mechanism that will lead to one of the knowable outcomes.

Does that mean the cards don't follow causality? Does that if we could see the deck as it was being shuffled, that the jack would magically appear on the top of the deck outside of the shuffling? No. If the deck could avoid causality, then our odds would be worthless. If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example.

Spacetime is a classical concept (macro), like causality, that has no physical meaning at or shorter than a planck length (c10^-35 meters) or a planck interval (c10^-44 seconds) (nano). — 180 Proof

Isn't measurement a way we measure space? It doesn't matter how small it is, what you are describing fits in space. You also dodged my point about time. Can its state change over time? Can it interact with space time? If so, its not out of space time. That fits the definition of something being in space time. If you can explain how it doesn't, please try.

What caused the first cause, though? — Olivier5

A first cause has no prior cause. The point of the argument is that this is ultimately the universe will have a first cause origination. If you would like to show where the argument is incorrect, feel free.

So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused no electricity to flow out of the circuit? Can the answer be, "The gate was off" and/or "the electricity was off"? — InPitzotl

Yes, you've nailed it.

Causality presupposes spacetime, therefore spacetime cannot be an effect of a cause; spacetime "allows for" causality. Einstein refers, more or less, to this as locality, no? — 180 Proof

How does plank space dodge spacetime? Are you saying it takes up no space? Then it is nothing, or God. I believe we both know arguments that have justified God this way are wrong. Why would it be any different here? Are you saying there is no time? Time is merely state change. Does the plank state never change? If it is outside of time, how can it interact with our universe in time? If it is outside of space, how can it interact with space?

Despite all of these questions, I also don't want to miss the point of the OP. If it does not have a prior explanation for its existence, then it is a first cause. In my mind, all you're stating at this point is that you believe this is the first cause, opposed to God, or even the big bang. This does not counter the argument I've made.

I have immense gratitude that someone finally took up the argument properly. You may be correct in 4. What I was trying to explain is the consequence of that tautology. While I believe it is a necessary point to explain, it may have been placed at the wrong point of the argument.

If we try to interpret "reason" in line with state causality, then the conclusion doesn't follow. The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop admit a first cause, therefore a first cause must be the case. — SophistiCat

I would reword it to this: "The argument essentially says that since neither an infinite regress nor a causal loop have a prior cause for existing, we can only conclude these are themselves first causes.

In other words, there is no prior state that necessitates there exist the state of an infinite regress, or a finite regress. If you try to, you simply introduce a prior cause, and we're in the same position again. As such, the only logical conclusion is that the universe must have a first cause. The consequences of this have been discussed in a few posts here. If the argument is satisfactory to you, feel free to add to these discussions. If not, feel free to continue to critique.

Just because something cannot be caused in a classical mechanical view of causality does not mean there's no reason why it exists. The problem is you keep talking about time and causality surrounding circumstances that aren't subject to those notions. It's incoherent to consider questions about time and causality surrounding the planck epoch. — Benkei

If a thing has a reason for its existence, that means something caused it to exist. Explain to me how plank space isn't subject to causality, don't simply assert it as if it is true. I didn't buy it in the Kalem argument, and I don't buy it now. I'm asking a perfectly coherent question. Don't simply assert that its incoherent, show why its incoherent.

I strongly agree with your point that asking what came before the planck-epoch becomes incoherent because there was no notion of time to refer to on the basis of the no-boundary theory and therefore non notion of causality in the classical sense. — Benkei

Isn't this the same argument the theists have been making about God for centuries? Considering plank space is only a theory at this point with many untested assertions, isn't this just a more detailed God argument?

If plank space is caused then there is a prior or underlying reason for its being. If plank space is uncaused, then there is no reason for its existence, besides the fact that it exists. And if something could be that has no prior causality, then logically, you can't conclude any reason why it exists. Meaning you cannot conclude that time did not exist prior to plank space either. It is the same reason why the Kalem cosmological argument fails.

SpaceDweller What's unclear about this statement:
The classical (macro) concept of "causality" has no physical meaning at or below the planck scale (nano).
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Why not? Why can't I simply ask, "What caused the plank scale to exist?" Either something caused it to exist, or it exists simply because it does, without a prior explanation.

I finally get what you're trying to say OP.

Hume: There is no logical necessity in causality. No reason why if the first two times I hit a ball and it rolled away, at a particular speed and direction, the third time I repeat my action, the ball should faithfully replicate the behavior precisely as before.

The idea of cause, we can forget about first cause, as having to do with logical necessity is a category mistake - like saying red is loud! — TheMadFool

Not a worry. I'm thinking at this point that I did not write a clear enough idea in my desire to keep it within a certain size. That is on me, and no one else.

About Hume, Hume was talking about causality as an induction of belief about the future. In other words, there was no reason to believe the rules of causality (or really, rules of anything) would be the same tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean we cannot test the rules of today, and come to the conclusion that causality exists. Hume noted that our belief that the rules would be stable tomorrow could be nothing more than a belief. So far, that belief has held true. So can we know the future? Never.

So in the same vein, we can examine the distant past. Perhaps it is the case that billions of years ago, the rules of the universe functioned differently. Perhaps objects existed that were pure chaos and had no explanation for their being. While we can trace up what the past "should" be if the rules are the same, its really a matter of faith. Still, I think its a matter of faith we can cling to. Further, I can see no alternative to chaos and causality. Chaos is essentially a first cause, while causality is the expected response to external forces.

So, with the inductive belief that causality still existed back then, and as I have no other belief in my mind, I try to come to a logical conclusion with causality, and with a first cause, what must necessarily exist without prior causality.

What an absolutely fantastic skill! Well done, and thank you.

Very nice. Was that of your own making or taken from somewhere?

Honestly, no, I'm still trying to analyze this. I can still what you possibly mean branching off in a few different directions, and I don't quite know which one you'll take. I reserve the right to make a point later, if I have one to make; but for now, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

The question I just asked is similar to a question a couple of posts ago. You're talking about an explanation for a "different" state. I'm trying to figure out if this is some counterfactual difference you're talking about, or just a change. — InPitzotl

That's very fair. I've been on a computer chips kick in my posts, so I suppose I'll continue with them.
A transistor can either be on, or off. If it is on, the electricity will travel through the gate. When it is off, the electricity is cut off. Imagine that we have power constantly running to the transistor. Now imagine that the circuit is complete. We have electricity traveling that circuit. What caused electricity to travel the entirety of the circuit? At a particular scale we can say, "The gate was on". Or we could be more detailed and say, "And the electricity was on."

But lets say I look at the circuit one second later, and the electricity is still flowing through the circuit. Why is the circuit flowing? The answer is the same, but time has changed. The scale that I spoke about earlier is how much time you wish to pass, and what scale of change you want to attribute. I gave to the scale of the electricity and the gate, but perhaps someone could use the scale of human beings. I could say, "The reason the circuit if flowing is because I turned it on.

Why I think you should chime in with your own opinions right now is I can go incredibly detailed on this, and it could branch out into a topic of its own. If I go too detailed, I might confuse you. Finally, the whole point of causality is for the argument I made, and I don't want to go off on a major tangent.

But this was just exactly my point. Causality is applied in order to understand phenomena; it is not a phenomena itself. The operation of the computer chip is understood through the application of the principle of cause and effect. "Evidence" (empirical collections of data) is the wrong thing to ask for, since such a thing could not exist if it were not for causality itself.

What you need to demonstrate is that this causality has a reality in-itself, and is not just a function of the mind. Again, the computer chip as phenomena is understood through causality. But for what reason should we believe causality exists beyond this? You have simply taken it for granted that the conjunction of phenomena in successive time by rules has a valid application beyond these phenomena. — _db

Honestly, you've lost me at this point. I've given a few clear examples of computers. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of how a computer works without causality. How did you post your reply to me without you being the cause of it? We are past generalities at this point, and are in the realm of specifics.

"Phenomena" is a dangerous word that is often thrown around without any real definition. Please explain what you specifically mean with phenomena as well. You should be able to explain your concept without using the word, and I will understand what you are intending to argue.

If I understand you correctly Verdi, you take a more Eastern direction of philosophy. By the way, I do enjoy it, and feel it has its time and place. But this is more of a Western philosophy. I am not asking you to change your mind, just understand that I do not feel an Eastern style philosophy will fit in with what I'm doing here. If you want to entertain some Western style philosophy, just charitably entertain the idea that causality exists as stated, and see if my conclusions have merit, or if they are flawed.

Different from the former as opposed to same as the former? — InPitzotl

I feel at this point you have something you want to say. Feel free to. Once I understand the larger point, I think we can get all of your questions out of the way at once.

Yes, a certainty. Besides, if one universe can become, so then can another. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Isn't that neat? Opposed to multiverse theory being something we entertain for fun, it becomes something we can view as a logically likely reality.

We do not experience causality! We experience phenomena, arranged in an order in space and time, and apply the concepts of cause-and-effect to these phenomena. — _db

The problem here is you just keep saying an idea, but you're providing no evidence. Try to explain how a computer chip works without causality. If you can do it, I think you'll have something.

I got my degree in CS, I know how these things work...regardless, none of it necessitates that causality exists independently of the human mind. Rather, all it demonstrates is that our perception of computers always involves an element of causality.

There is the computer chip qua phenomena, which is conditioned by the pure sensible conditions of space and time, and is understood through the application of concepts, one being causality; note that the computer chip qua phenomena is nothing when not considered in relation to them. Objects of perception are always in a relation to the mind, in that it is the mind that determines how the object is perceived.

The computer chip, as it exists independently of the human mind (qua noumena), is unknowable, i.e. it transcends the conditions of the possibility of experience. — _db

Let define what you mean by perception. When I think of perception, I think of the senses. Then there is interpretation of what those senses perceive. Finally, there is application. I cannot interpret a perception of sight if I am blind. Light within my eyes causes me to see, and my mind causes me to interpret that light a particular way. I can then analyze and think about how the light behaves, and how to use it.

But if I am blind, light still exists. My perception of it by sight is gone, but it is still around. This is evidenced by there being blind people in the world and light still exists. If you are going to go into solipsism, I decline as that goes too far out of the topic we are covering.

If you understand CS, then you understand causality. Unless there is a language barrier, I can't think of anything more plain to prove that causality exists apart from direct perception than that.

Yeah, but it's not that simple. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics and creation from nothing, they'll tell you the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. Anything that can cause something is, by definition, something. — T Clark

Nothing ever is! The quantum vacuum is of course only a theory at this time. Many of its postulates are hypothetical. We know certain things are happening like particles popping in and out of existence, and this is an attempt to explain why.

But barring this, lets say it is real. What caused the quantum vacuum? And we're right back where we started. The existence of the quantum vacuum is irrelevant to the point made in the OP, because it is simply another Y.

This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time?

I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at this point I'm not sure what the difference is between "cause things to exist" and just "cause things". — InPitzotl

If that would make things clearer, lets do that. Its about things being a state captured in time, another state captured later in time, and an explanation for why the state of the later is different form the former.

Would gravity be a force? Magnetism? The Higgs Mechanism? — InPitzotl

I am not trying to put my own spin on force here. Yes. All of these are forces in physics.

It is my understanding of quantum mechanics, that matter and energy are continually being created and destroyed from nothing and to nothing in the quantum vacuum state. — T Clark

Yes! You don't know how good it feels to finally speak with someone who is willing to take the conversation to its conclusion.

I realized it after I finished the proposal. After all, an uncaused cause does not necessarily have to remain existing. In fact, since an alpha would follow no rules for its being, it would seem that anything could form at equal likelihood. Why would a self-caused existence necessarily exist forever? If any period of time to exist is equally likely, as there would be no reason why it should or should not, by random chance most alphas would have a finite existence.

I've often wondered if that also means alphas would be "small". A self caused entity would be complete right? A complex "self-caused" entity would be several self caused entities that not only appeared in a specific order, but also would be able to interact in a way that remained stable. That's seems ridiculously unlikely. I've often wanted another person's take on this. What do you think?

What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself? — Verdi

Verdi, when you press the key on your keyboard to type a message, does the message type? Doesn't the press of the physical key cause the letter to appear on you screen? Aren't you the one causing the message to be typed and sent to me? Or is that all in your mind?

When it gets compiled into very specific 1's and 0's sent over your line, read by a server that only responds very specifically to a set combination of 1's and 0's, is that not causality? If you can demonstrate that these instances are all in my mind, and do not exist independently of our observation, I will consider your proposal.

My apologies if I've been confusing. The state of the cue ball in its new velocity is not the same as the cue ball without velocity. This is a "new" state caused by the cue ball's collision. Without the cue balls collision, or an equally placed force, the 8 ball would not be in its new state of velocity.

Disingenuious selective reading. Let's not waste anymore of each other's time. Our respective posts might be read and evaluated by interested third-parties. I've guven this thread topic far more attention than it warrants. Pax. — 180 Proof

Disingenuious selective reading? You don't read my post, you post very selective readings, then when I read your selective readings and show they were straw men, you throw a pithy insult in an attempt to save face and run away?

Third parties ARE reading our posts, and you are setting a very poor example. I hope you're just having a bad day because you were incredibly disappointing.

Not quite, imo. Cause is simply a presupposition of a theory. That means at best it is never true - except as a cogwheel in the theory - but only efficacious. Apparently for parts of modern physics it's no longer adequate even as that. Perfectly good for billiards players though, still. — tim wood

The presupposition of theory is that cause will continue into the future. That is the induction. That is what can never be truly known, because we cannot know until we step into the future and confirm it. Still, we take it on faith, and it has always been confirmed (so far).

Do you think the computer you are using doesn't use causality? I'm going to need a little more detail than the idea that some scientists in some things don't use causality anymore. As far as I know, every single thing manufactured and used in this world cannot be done without a fundamental understanding of causality. If you can grant me this much, then you should be armed to address the OP.

The internet and the computer I use are phenomena that are conditioned by the mental apparatus. Things in space and time have no independent existence outside of their appearance. — _db

Your computer is a bunch of circuits and logic gates that only function because we know how they will respond once electricity is applied properly. If the gate is on, its true and lets electricity go to the next gate. If it is off, electricity is shunted to another gate. All of this necessitates that causality, independent of the human mind, exists. You believing that the computers circuitry does not exist when you aren't looking at it is not good enough for the chip manufacturers who ensure you received a working product.

Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect. — Verdi

No, I'm not imposing anything. They made a claim. I pointed out a contradiction I saw with that claim. They are free to counter that point if they wish. We are here to think about things logically (as best we can, I fail too), so I am going to point out when I see a contradiction.

Lets say that physics can be done without cause an effect. That still does not counter my specific contradiction I pointed out to him. With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. The points I am making are about causality, and the logic we can conclude from it. If he cannot prove that causality does not exist, then my points still stand.

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball.
— Philosophim
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist.
The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state
— Philosophim
Is there a new thing that exists when the 8 ball exists in a new velocity state?
You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.
— Philosophim
Sure... would that be a new thing existing? — InPitzotl

Yes, the 8 ball in a state of velocity is different from the 8 ball in a state of zero velocity. There is added heat to the ball through friction and the slight bend and reaction from the impact. The reason it is in the state of velocity at this particular shap shot is because a cue ball hit it one second ago. Depending on the scale of measurement, we could view the ball as merely an arrangement of atoms and elections. That is up to you. Create whatever scale you would like. I believe the argument isn't concerned with scale, though perhaps you can find a flaw in it if you do think there is a valid point here.

Third possibility: "causation" is a concept of the mind, and does not have any application to things as they exist independently of it. — _db

This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality.

It does seem, though, that cause is most easily seen, understood, appreciated as an observer's account, serving the needs of the observer, rather than something itself. — tim wood

The classic Hume approach. I believe Hume is correct in our belief that consistent cause that will repeat in the future is something unknowable. Why should the rules of physics be the same tomorrow? That does not mean we cannot accurately find the rules of physics today through experimentation and scientific elimination. When we do have faith that causality will continue to work, our faith is fulfilled. It is the habit of belief that causality will be maintained that Hume rightly points out as an induction, but that does not deny that causality cannot be deduced.

Cause is generally measured through the application of distinct force over time. You can set the time scale to however back you wish. But what must be consistent is that a chain of force events occur that necessarily lead to the present time of the 8 ball. Clearly if some ne'er do well were to attempt to drop an 8 ball 3 stories up on my head, no court of law would question whether they attempted to use gravity to drop the 8 ball on my head. We can discuss the types of force involved, the scale of the forces involved, and scale of time involved, but no one denies that prior events cause the events of today.

And it is simply that cause that I am addressing. I do not think the argument stretches those limits, but perhaps you can point out where it does.

Fine, this one time I'll go over your straw man arguments.

Your first link starts with,

"the premise [ ... ] everything has to have a cause to exist
— Varese
... is patently false. See Causa sui, etc ... follow links for further contexts."

So if you read the conclusion of the argument, you agree with me. A first cause is an "uncaused cause". It is existent without prior explanation. When I read the first sentence that agreed with my point, but you were implying it contradicted my point, I knew you hadn't read it.

Your second point in that same link was,

""3. An infinite regress ... is impossible"

False."

I never claim infinite regression is impossible. In fact, I assume its possible, and think about the consequences if it is true in the argument.

So again, your first link posits two points which agree with what I've stated in the argument. When you imply this counters my argument, what am I to think except for the fact that you didn't read it? If you were someone knew to philosophy, I would assume you simply didn't understand it. But combined with the initial troll in the beginning, I can only conclude you didn't read, and STILL haven't read it.

For your second post, the first two parts I have no disagreement with. Only your last part,

- Was there a first cause?
No.

disagrees with my end premise, but contains no explanation why there would be no first cause as defined in my argument. Just read the argument 180 proof. You clearly have the intelligence for it, and you might even agree with my conclusion.

Could I get an example of a thing causing something to exist? — InPitzotl

Sure, the usual example in philosophy is a cue ball hitting an 8 ball. The 8 ball exists in a new velocity state because the cue ball struck it with a certain amount of force. You could go plot the life of the entire ball up to its creation in the factory if you wanted.