Very nice follow up BrianW. I wondered if someone would consider multiple first causes! Fantastic!

The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist.
— Philosophim

This statement is the query and its own answer. — BrianW

This is an axiom. All good arguments must start with an axiomatic foundation if we are to take them seriously. It is from this axiom, that I introduce limits and what must occur from those limitations.

We have our universe, and within the chain of causation, the entire set of this universe must have a first cause.

To your point on multiple first causes, isn't it cool?! Think on it for a few minutes and a whole slew of possibilities show up. If it is the case that a first cause has no reason for its existence, then what is to prevent a first cause from showing up at any time? It doesn't have to be grandiose like a God, it could be something as small as a quark, or some basic particle. But you are correct. Without some type of limitation on the argument, it devolves into infinite possibilities. So let me limit it.

It is not that there could not be further first causes in a universe after its "inception". We are looking at our specific universe as it is. And we are looking at the beginning of it all. The "why" to the set of everything that it is in this universe. That first cause to it all, is the study of the argument.

There is one chance that the first cause was something like the big bang. Any deviation after that would be a different universe. But then we can imagine a being that had the power to create our universe. If there is a minimum ability to create our universe, from the big bang identically down beyond, then it is also possible a being could form that had a slightly greater ability to create the universe, and created our exact universe.

Since there is an infinite to one ratio on Gods to no Gods being the first cause of our universe, I conclude the probability of the first cause of the universe being infinite to one.

You say it becomes an endless loop, but how? I've placed limitations, and come up with a restriction that stops any endless loop. And yet I admit it is still flawed. I have a feeling you might get it.

I honestly find them to be useless and outdated words. I have never used them, nor ever had need to use them in constructing a philosophical paper, or argument. I am not saying they did not have a use centuries ago, but when speaking in modern day English with people, I find them unnecessary. Often times people new to philosophy will attempt to use these words to sound like they are making a meaningful statement. I don't hold anything against them, you have to start somewhere after all, and a good place to start is usually using terms that seem to keep popping up.

As you learn and master philosophy, you start to realize the only thing that matters is that you construct your arguments in terms of clear concepts that are unambiguous, easy to understand, and assess. While someone might use the term "metaphysics", you often have to figure out what their intention and interpretation of metaphysics is in the argument. A generic understanding of metaphysics and ontology is fine for orienting yourself as a possible start to the arguments intentions, but that's about all their good for.

I embrace the terror. That might seem strange, but hear me out. I believe the realization of one's mortality is one of the most important steps to personal growth a person can make. I think you realize this.

My afterlife theory is, "What will life be like after I'm gone?" What impact will I have made on the world. Will I die proudly, or with regrets, shame, and "What ifs?"

It is more motivating to me than heaven or hell. And I don't say this as an armchair believer. I say this as a practitioner. Because of my choices, if I died today I could safely say that I had done everything I wanted, and left this world in the life I wanted. Its pretty cool! To me every other afterlife story is about, "Getting something later like we deserve it without effort." "You're so special and awesome, the universe has decided that YOU get to live forever!"

My afterlife theory? You are not any more special than what you make of your life today, and what you leave for others tomorrow. You are not deserving of anything that you do not pursue and obtain in life.

And the best part is, you can start reaping the benefits today!

That is an artificial distinction. You're making it more complicated than it is. His hypothesis was: there are children who remember previous lives. Falsification of that hypothesis would be to show they did not remember previous lives. — Wayfarer

That is a basic hypotheses that does not cover the reality of reincarnation. That is like saying, "There are children that are happy. It is false if I can never find a child that is happy." Congrats, we know that children are happy.

That does not lead to the conclusion that "Children are happy because God made them so."

Same with reincarnation to your hypotheses. Yes, kids can claim they lived other lives. Now you need to refine your hypotheses. If you claim, "They remember other lives because they are reincarnated," you need to think of ways that you could potentially prove this to be false.

And that's not difficulty. "Can we repeat the findings world wide? Can we rule out that its not a story or coincidence? (Statistics helps with this one). Your problem is you think science is about affirming truths. It has never been about affirming truths. It is about tearing down everything you can until something stands which cannot be torn down. It is about trying to disprove your belief, not confirming your belief.

No, it would definitely not be 'cool'. It would be regarded as pseudo-science — Wayfarer

Of course it would be cool. Do you realize the potential of it? The truths it could open up to the mind? Perhaps there would be a linked human consciousness or a world soul, or even a God. There are PLENTY of interested parties who would be greatly interested in VIABLE scientific theories. You are making an assumption that people didn't bother to check his work. The more likely, and realistic explanation that fits within the way of the world, is that his work did not pass the high bar of science.

Again, I am very willing to accept a viable scientific test that would show that reincarnation could not be shown to be false, and is the only reasonable alternative to certain phenomenon. I would read up on it. Find the core hypotheses that he developed, and examine his testing methods, not just his results. See if out of all the possibilities that could be, you feel that there is no other alternative to reincarnation.

Then come tell me! If you did, I would think it very cool. Until then though, I see no evidence of hard science being done here, only psychology and some wish projection.

I think we are largely in agreement. Yes, the greater number of people you test your own personal knowledge claims against, the more challenges arrive that possibly show it to be false. Further, I also agree on a scaffolding of knowledge. Knowing algebra relies on knowing a lot of other fundamentals. Sometimes when our current perceptions of what we know are challenged, it is the underlying fundamentals which are brought back into question again.

I think your statements are great fundamentals to start tackling more complex questions. Please continue on as you build on this! Once you are done, I may throw a few questions your way to see how your theory handles it, but so far, this seems great.

Sincerest apologies but there really isn't anything you can say against contraposition or modus tollens in re its application in the scientific method. — TheMadFool

Do not post false apologies; actually address the point. I never said anything against these logic proofs in the application of science.

We're on the philosophy forums, a place where we expect a little higher quality of communication and behavior. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of science. If you believe this to be in error, then address this accusation seriously. Whether right or wrong, you will have respect for showing intellectual honesty and a respectful debate. If not, you will come across to people not as TheMadFool, but simply TheFool.

Well if a crying smiley face is the best you can reply with, then you're letting us all know you're not interested in a civil and intelligent discussion. That's a shame, you struck me as someone who would better than that.

I've found the truth and it is provably true! I cannot present it because it will spoil the fun. I can verify it's truth once it is presented if anyone would desire that. — Edgy Roy

If you're trying to mock my post, I revealed the flaw on page 3 between 3017amen and myself. It was a fun and good discussion. Not everyone enjoys tackling a logic puzzle, but there's no need to come over here and mock those who do right?

Sure. If you could show his results were bogus, then you would falsify the children's claims. That's what I kept saying to MF. His cases comprise thousands of alleged memories that have been checked against documentary and witness accounts. Prove they're fallacious, and you've falsified his research. — Wayfarer

I think you do not have a clear grasp of what falsifiable means. Falsifiable does not mean you prove something false. Falsifiable is when we can invent a scenario in which it would be false. We then experiment, trying to show that it is false. If we CANNOT show it is false, then we have confirmed our hypothesis.

Check the conversations between TheMadFool and myself on defining what a hypothesis and falsification are about.

As I've said, I think Stevenson's research meets all the criteria, except for one: the subject matter! — Wayfarer

If you think his research meets the criterion, you must show it to be falsifiable. There is a mental trap we can fall into where we blame people who don't believe what we believe, as somehow being unreasonable. It is likely true that there are scientists who scoff at his research while not looking at it. But, if he submitted his research findings to peer review, then a journal would seriously analyze his methods to see if they were scientific. You don't think reincarnation as a viable field wouldn't be cool or profitable to many scientists out there looking for grants and jobs?

If you want to prove the scientists wrong, its very simple. Look at his research and think on falsifiables. Here's one for example, "If a child or the parent is not aware that the study is about reincarnation, and we ask uncoached questions about having a previous life, 1 out of 500 children between the ages of 3-5 will report having a previous life that we can find a 70% match to."

I read a little bit about his stuff, and his 1 out of 500 cases was about the frequency he was able to get of reincarnation.

We can then refine his hypotheses, "If the above criteria are met, and we are to be certain that the 1 500 chance is not random chance, we do not expect more than 1 in (some statistical max) to report on a previous life that does not meet a 70% match".

And so on. They physics we use to type on the internet hasn't been proven true. No one has ever been able to prove it false. THAT is what falsifiable means. That is what science does.

Well, are you saying the natural deduction rules contraposition and modus tollens are wrong? :chin: — TheMadFool

An honest question. No, science does not, because each of those statements are hyptheses which have falsification, and have not been proven false.

Lets go with Modus Tollens because its easy.

Lets put a falsification statement to Modus Tollens. My hypothesis will be, "if P -> Q, then It can never be P, when its ~Q". Clearly it can be false if I observe that it is ~Q and also P.

So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed.

Now of course we can make more hypotheses, and in fact, science encourages it. I might introduce, "We can say, if P-> Q then P can't ever lead to ~Q"

Turns out after applying that we get P -> (Q v ~Q), and we discover something new while trying to disproving our hypothesis.

To have a viable scientific hypotheses about reincarnation, you need a hypothesis which is falsifiable, and then you must demonstrate that it is not proven false in application.

By all means, feel free to try to prove Contraposition as false. It also has clear circumstances we can think on to show that it is false. If you can't prove it is false, while thinking of situations that would show it to be false, you are doing science, and confirming your hypothesis.

My definition of meaning isn't about profit in a next life or ethereal afterlife. It is about being more than the matter I am made of. — TiredThinker

If that is your passion, that is fine. Work on become a neuroscientist or AI developer. There are people who are trying to mimic the brain with the ultimate goal of transferring consciousness over to something more durable and longer lasting than a human brain. You may not obtain it, but your work may allow others to obtain it in the future.

But taking the gift you have and lamenting it is not something else is something I think many people go through. Some don't find meaning because they were born in a poor area of the world where they subsisted on meager eating until dying at a young age. Some don't find meaning because they suffer a crippling disease, and wish their life was one that did not have it.

There is no meaning in something that cannot be. Its not meaning that you're looking for. Its a desire for a wish to come true. You have to look at what you have, at what is, as real and naked in front of you as it is, and find value in making it something you feel proud of.

And the mind can survive death in its ideas and impact on the world. You are able to type your woes online. That is the lasting impact of a mind beyond its fleshy vessel. The works of famous philosophers created scientific and political changes that you benefit from today.

Meaning does not rely on a fantasy. Meaning relies on reality. You can let your mind be more than its woeful self (I say in jest). Get out there and let your mind make an impact on the world that will last beyond your death. Just...make it a positive one if you would? It helps everyone else obtain the same goal as well. =)

Hi Wayfarer,

In any case, Stevenson went doggedly on with his research, ultimately assembling quite a few thousand such cases. But in this matter, no matter what evidence, a lot of people will simply refuse to accept that such a thing as past life memories could occur, and that there must be another explanation — Wayfarer

Honestly, I do not know Stephenson's research, nor am I qualified to judge it. Were there falsifiables in his research? That is truly all that matters if we are going to claim he had hypothesis.

Science is not about confirming your biases. It is finding that even after you try to disprove your bases by coming up with alternative explanations and tests, that only one thing remains "true". I think that is what some people misunderstand about science. You are trying to disprove your hypothesis to get to a conclusion, not prove your hypothesis.

If Stephenson tried to disprove that reincarnation was the possible explanation using sound hypotheses, and was unable to, then we can say his work was scientific. I do not know his methods, or his hypotheses unfortunately.

If you've noticed, I've tried to come up with a few ways to make reincarnation scientific. But lets follow Stephen's work. I did read a little, and he stated that reincarnation apparently only happened in nearby areas, and that only kids between the ages of 3-5 had any former memories.

We could take his work, and try to repeat it in another area of the world, like Africa, or India. Science is also not an opinion. It doesn't matter if people think, or don't think what you are doing is science. If you meet the definitions of science, you are doing science.

My problem with the OP is they are not interested in proposing a proper hypotheses for reincarnation. They are trying to claim that, "Look, I have a belief that has some evidence, but its not scientific." Exactly. Evidence for your belief is not science. When your belief has survived all attempts to disprove it, then you have science.

We faced to a few cases(events),in our real life daily,that their occurrences are inevitable
but their math probabilities are still get you numbers that show uncertains!! — boby

If something is certain, then it is a 100% probability. Having a probability less than that means it is uncertain, and not inevitable. I am still uncertain of what it means by probability having a limit of range that is meaningful. Still, perhaps at this point you should go to a math forum. I think we're out of the bounds of philosophy at this point.

Best I can tell, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge. — Hippyhead

The methodology was logic. There are certain things we have to assume as norms to have conversations. Imagine if every time I wanted a logical conversation with someone, I had to prove logic!

What we do is set certain assumptions on the argument. For example, "I and the reader assume that logic is a viable method to think. We have examined the precepts of logic, and have determined to agree, at least for the purposes of this argument, to the rules that logic follows."

We do that every day btw. Think about if you went to a shoe store and a clerk asked you, "What size are you sir?" Would you say your shoe size, or would you say something like, "How can you assume I'm real? What do you even mean by size? Is the size of the shoe I wear my actual size, or is it simply some abstract factory size, so it is THEIR size I am forced to wear and not mine?!

If the store clerk was patient and had lots of free time, they might entertain your questions. But more than likely, because the store clerk is there to sell you shoes, he's not really interested in such metaphysical questions.

I have long ago studied and questioned the validity of logic, and find it to be sound. As such, years later I do not start every argument or proposition with a lengthy explanation of why logic is a sound way to start.

Now if you have not completed that journey, or have found logic to not be sound, then of course you would find it difficult to enter into a conversation about logic. Perhaps you have determined that their factory size is not actually your real size, and so you have sworn off wearing factory made shoes forever. But going into the store trying to tell the man he should not be selling shoes because he has not figured out the metaphysical secrets of shoe sizes, is probably not helpful or appropriate in that context.

Same with this argument. As I stated earlier, if you would like to make a post stating why logic is not sound, I would be glad to join. Maybe you have a point. But I can't do that here when I'm just trying to sell shoes. My customers do not question the metaphysics of shoe size, and just want to buy some shoes. =)

1. Formulate Hypothesis H

2. If H (is true) then predictions X, Y, Z

3. If predictions X, Y, Z are observed then H is confirmed — TheMadFool

That's not how a hypothesis works. Here is the definition of falsifiability.

"Criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false."

Here are some examples and explanation. https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html
---
1. An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
2. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
3. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.
---

Falsifiability of H is possible only if the failure to observe predictions X, Y, Z implies that H is false — TheMadFool

Your above statement matches to what a non-falsifiable statement is. It is not about a failure to observe what we want that makes it falsifiable. It is if we have a clear statement of what would make it false, and cannot meet that standard in our observation.

In your case of reincarnation, you are saying its wrong because of an absence of evidence, which indeed does not make it falsifiable. You are claiming that someone has actually had a past life experience. In your declaring this is confirmed, you need to have a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Is it possibly false that they did not have past life experiences? What hypothesis could prove it wrong that they had past life experiences?

I can introduce one. "If we have an accurate first hand account of a previous dead person's experience, and another person accurately matches that first hand record of the dead person's experience, without knowing anything about the dead person, or their experiences, then we can claim the dead person was reincarnated."

There are several falsifiables here.

1. We must have an accurate first hand account of the dead person's experience. After all, if they are reincarnated, they will only have this memory as a first hand experience.
2. The person in question must know nothing about the previous person, or about their recorded first hand experience.

So when you mean there is a claim to reincarnation, as in a hypothesis, what were the falsifiables of that claim? If there are falsifiables, then we can actually say the exploration of reincarnation actually started with a scientific hypothesis. But if there are no falsifiables to this claim, then that is not a hypothesis, and is not scientific. In other words, there is no non-scientific hypothesis. Its either a scientific hypthesis, or it is not a hypothesis.

Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions.
— Philosophim

Perhaps for a next project you could explain why we should care if an argument uses sound logic if the argument has no relationship with reality. Do you conceive of the puzzle you've presented as a kind of card game? You know, a collection of arbitrary rules which are fun to inhabit for awhile? If yes, I have no complaints, but it might be helpful to state that clearly from the start. — Hippyhead

Let me clarify what that sentence meant in context. 3017Amen was worried about the consequences of the conclusion as an argument as to why I should not conclude that. My reply was intended to note that we cannot use the consequences of an argument, as a reason we shouldn't use the argument.

Think of going to the doctor to get screened for cancer. You might not want to hear the results, but that's not an argument against getting screened for cancer.

While I do admit the conclusion of the argument is flawed (if you've been following along, you know why), I will contend that the argument does apply to our reality in its earlier points. I conclude that it is impossible for our universe to not have had a first cause. I also conclude by logical necessity, that a first cause cannot be constrained in what it is. It does not rely on a necessary prior cause for existence. As such, if we do not know what the first cause is, it is completely logical to think one possibility, is that it is a God.

It also proves it is possible that our universe's first cause was not a God. Plenty of conclusions in reality have been determined by logical limitations and their conclusions. Here is an example:

"The idea of a spherical Earth was floated around by Pythagoras around 500 BC and validated by Aristotle a couple centuries later. If the Earth really was a sphere, Eratosthenes could use his observations to estimate the circumference of the entire planet.

Since the difference in shadow length is 7 degrees in Alexandria and Syene, that means the two cities are 7 degrees apart on Earth's 360-degrees surface. Eratosthenes hired a man to pace the distance between the two cities and learned they were 5,000 stadia apart, which is about 800 kilometres.

He could then use simple proportions to find the Earth's circumference — 7.2 degrees is 1/50 of 360 degrees, so 800 times 50 equals 40,000 kilometers. And just like that, a man 2200 years ago found the circumference of our entire planet with just a stick and his brain."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html

Logic problems cannot only find us solutions that match reality, they can drive us to see if they DO match reality. No one logically concluded the Earth must have been a dyson sphere, so no one really took that approach. But when someone said, "Logically the Earth must be round," it inspired people to either prove or disprove it.

An argument such as this then wasn't a puzzle removed from reality. It is an attempt to logically conclude what reality must be. Do you agree?

Hello BrianW!

If effects arise from causes, what is the cause of the first cause?

Does the ultimate/fundamental origin also have an origin? — BrianW

I answer all of these questions within the points of the argument. The argument is unique, and does not fall prey to the common trappings. It might look like a pain to start reading, but you might find something new and different out of it to think on.

I'm not sure if this is making sense - I'm thinking through this as I go. — TVCL

Please continue! The pages I linked you at one time numbered past one hundred, filled with my own thoughts as I went. Sometimes it is the best way to think.

I think we are both in agreement that knowledge is based on something that we determine. Of course, what do we use? The compass? The GPS? Both?

My only contention would be when you say:

I can define, and accept as a definition from others in my mind by my choice. There is nothing in reality that necessitates I do otherwise.
— Philosophim

This is contingent. Reality appears to determine that you must unite your definitions with others if you are to enter mutual understanding and dialogue with them. — TVCL

Let me rephrase your sentence to show you what I was trying to say.
Yes, you must unite your definitions with others if you are to enter mutual understanding and dialog with them. But reality does not necessitate that I desire to enter mutual understanding and dialog with them.

Let me give you an example. Imagine you and some friends are walking through a forest you pass by a bizarre looking tree. "Look at that tree!" one of them shouts. Every week you walk by and call it, "The bizarre tree". One day, you invite a friend who happens to be a botanist with you on your walks. As someone shouts out, "Hello Bizzarre tree, how are you today?" the botanist speaks up and states, "Oh, that's actually a bush."

The botanist then goes into detail about what defines it as a bush, and sure enough, applying that definition fits. One of your friends agrees, but another of your friends doesn't believe the person is a botanist, and thinks the botanist is pulling their leg. "Sure, whatever. Sorry, but its too tall to be a bush, its still the Bizarre tree to me."

One of your friends now knows it as a bush and the Bizarre tree. Your other friend only knows it as the Bizarre tree, because they have refused to accept the botanists contextual definition. Now you might think this friend dimwitted, but lets imagine the scenario another way. Lets say the "botanist" actually wasn't a botanist, but a convincing liar. Now your ignorant friend appears to be wise in who they trust, while the believer in the "bush" identification now comes across as a dupe.

Another way to consider it (going back to the real botanist this time) is your friend who doesn't believe the tree is a bush, simply doesn't care about botany, and likes the fun of calling it "The Bizarre tree". Calling it a "bush" demystifies it, and they don't want to lose that.

So here we have two separate contexts that each has applied to safely say each person knows within the context they accepted. The friend who accepted the botanist's context can still speak with the one who refused to accept it. When those two are together, they might both call it "The Bizarre tree" for comradery. And when the "academic" friend meets another botanist, that friend won't call it "The Bizarre tree", but instead the botanist's context of bush. Or maybe the academic of the group will think the other friend is a lunk head, causing a fight every time they pass the tree next in the future. There are several outcomes, and no requirement within reality that any one context be accepted within the group.

Thus I do claim there is no necessity in what context a person must accept, but I do agree that if you want to be in harmony with other people, it is important to. Of course, does deciding to be in harmony with a group mean you have useful applicable knowledge? Think on this when applied to politics or religion.

This circles back to your idea that our idea of knowledge is formed by our goals. If our goal is to have harmony and peace within a group, we may decide to throw out certain contexts that might better match reality, but help us preserve harmony. In fact, our context may actually fly in the face of what most other contexts would think of reality, but not in the face of preserving peace and harmony.

Still, if we have a common methdology of knowledge within those contexts, we can differentiate who believes in their context, versus who actually applicably knows their context.

And there is MY ramble. Feel free to continue on where you left off!

3. The state of despair concerns the human condition viz an ontological argument based on logical necessity. — 3017amen

I think this is a situation outside of the current argument. The argument is only concerned within its own scope. Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions.

I think I can see why you might be concerned, but I think that's drawing the cart before the horse.

Precisely why an ontological argument lacks meaning. It's based on mathematics which is a priori. Living life (Being) is not exclusively mathematics and a priori. It's many other things including a posteriori phenomena and induction; not math and deduction. — 3017amen

An ontological argument lacks meaning if we want to construct specific knowledge from synthetic arguments, yes. But it is not useless if we wish to discuss logical limitations before we begin our synthetic explorations. If someone says, "I don't believe a God is possible, I'm not even going to talk about it," you could give them this argument.

Perhaps as someone who believes a God is possible, you see no value in this argument. But for a person who does not see a God as possible, and believes exploring the idea of a God is a waste of time, this can be used to begin a rational conversation.

Perhaps it is useless to you, but it is not useless to everyone. Even if you do believe it to be useless, the point of the discussion was to see if you could find the flaw, and of course, to think on something new and different. Did you have fun? I really appreciate your dedication, hard thinking, and points you made during this exploration. I know I had a lot of fun! I haven't gotten to chat like this in years with someone, so thank you.

t's either that, or if you're set on continuing to include the concept of Being in your God causation model, somehow combine the anthropic principle into your equations.

To me that would be very intriguing. — 3017amen

Feel free to if you like. As I said, this was an argument from several years ago now. I'm long out of the philosophy career. If someone gets an idea from it, I hope they run with it.

But once again you're bringing ontology into your cosmological model and I think it's confusing things — 3017amen

Perhaps at this point I should just reveal the flaw, because I think you understand the main tenants of the argument to get to this point. I I think you're in that ballpark. Lets sum again.

A=A A first cause has no prior preconditions to its being, therefore has no limitations to its being besides its own existence. For now call A - Big Bang and B specific universe that follows

A => B .

Now we can imagine that instead of our universe forming by the big bang, that a being could have been the first cause that formed and created our universe as it is identically.
This means the big bang (what was a first cause) is no longer the first cause, but a consequent of another first cause, in this case, a God.

A0 => B0 Is our possible universe in which there is no being, or God, as a first cause.
A God as a first cause we'll call A1.

Thus A1 => A0 => B0

But A0 is no longer a first cause. As such, it is now part of the specific universe, so we can simplify this to
(A0 => B0) = B1

A1 => B1

I then say because a God could have more than the minimum needed to create B1, that there are an infinite number of possible Gods.

So A2 => B1 and so on.

But here is the flaw. I stated there needs to be a being that creates the universe. I ascribed some type of being with the minimum power to create our universe.

"But a being doesn't exclude 'not being' from having the same situation"

We can also imagine a first cause that is not a being that would have the power to create the big bang, and our exact universe. Lets call it "the little pop" But I could have a little pop that could create our specific universe...and a little more.

Thus A2 => B1 and so on occur equally with a non-being first cause that would create our first cause universe of A0 => B0

The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held.

Does this ease your issue now? I think you were having trouble processing the idea of what a "being" entailed as I mentioned it, and you were trying to set it apart from "non being". We could call it "consciousness" if you wish, but it honestly didn't matter. I had defined two different identities, being and non-being, and given a special situation to being that non-being had no reason to be excluded from. I think that's what you were beginning to fish for. I didn't want to muddy the waters at that point anymore, because I think you were getting close. Does the flaw make sense?

The reason for its existence is within itself. That doesn't prove anything. And so if there's no answer to your theory of a causational Being it becomes an ontological existential state of despair. — 3017amen

What else am I to think about besides logical necessity? How can we go forward in the world without this reason? But more importantly, how do you draw a state of despair from all of this?

If the reason for its existence is the fact that it exists, it proves an incredibly important point. That is that a first cause is not bound by necessity to a precondition. This means a first cause could be anything. That leads down into the logic we are considering at this time. I am not merely saying A=A, and leaving it at that. From A=A, I am making a whole host of logical assertions. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "That doesn't prove anything?"

Yes, I am familiar with the idea of a synthetic apriori argument. This argument is not a synthetic argument, but a logical one. This is studying the consequence of what it means that the universe has a first cause, and what by necessity, that means about that first cause. We are doing a math problem from within the limitiations we are aware of. Any attempt to argue for or against a specific God would be another argument entirely.

Have you first defined meaning?

Lets go with this. You're defining "Meaning" as "Impact in some later life". So when you get to that later life...is there any meaning anymore?

You've been pushed with meaning as a religious means. You have been told to sacrifice for others; to not have a reward today, because you will have a reward much later. You have been taught to devalue your current life. To look at yourself as a poopsack that will only be worthy when your soul rises again. That you are a thing of harm and destruction that must be tamed and held back with struggle for a greater reward and existence later.

You were taught wrong.

You are a combination of atoms and molecules that have existed for trillions of years. You are a chemical reaction that not only works to keep itself going, but has gained something that has not happened (to our knowledge): sentience. You are matter, that realizes it is matter. You are part of the universe, that realizes it is part of the universe. You are able to see yourself. That's utterly flipping amazing, and incredibly rare.

You get to observe what you are around you and decide, "Should it be this way? Can it be better?" You get to find meaning in the now. In the breath that you take. In the thoughts that you will have for a precious few 80 years ( if you're lucky).

The rest of existence doesn't have this. The rest of existence is unaware of itself, blissfully smashing about and just doing what it started so long ago.

Do you think this is amazing? Or should it just go away? Should existence return to not knowing itself? Should we preserve existence that knows itself? What meaning will you attach to life? Can you, in recognizing yourself in the universe, figure out how to best express yourself in its logical laws?

Intelligent life has an incredible meaning. You don't have to wait to die to have it. Tell yourself today you are going to make something of it. You may stumble, you may make mistakes and even fail. But everything you do is a small portion of existence that has that precious sentience. Don't waste it.

Okay now you're changing from a logically necessary, causational Being, to a logically possible Being. Are you going to change your propositional model accordingly? Again I take no exceptions, but I think you need to rewrite your model that discusses that topic. — 3017amen

I was quite certain that the argument was about possible first causes, and a God being one of them.
I don't believe I ever stated God as a necessary first cause. Can you point out in the argument where I mentioned a God was a necessary first cause? Or at least the point what lead you to believe I was? It very well means I need to emphasize or add examples to certain sections.

Are you telling me we cannot question anyone's theory that God is a first cause? That seems contradictory and/or paradoxical because if you didn't have a sense of wonderment, you wouldn't have posited a cuz a tional being to begin with, correct? — 3017amen

No, you could definitely question if what you are calling a God is a first cause. I didn't mean you couldn't ask the question, but that there is no answer to the question because a first cause has no prior conditions for being.

Under the definition of a God, a God is also a first cause. This is important, because we could imagine a God that creates a being that creates a universe, considering we're dealing in all possibilities here. We would not consider the secondary being a God. Only the first cause being would be considered a God under the definition put here.

Okay, no exceptions taken. To me, that's in the spirit of logical possibility. But your model needs to provide analogies. What makes it more possible than not? What from physics and metaphysics can provide clues in so-called support of your own model? — 3017amen

Great, we're reaching the end here then. It's probably been a while, but go and read points 10 through 14 again. That answers why it is more possible than not, and should give you the analogies as to why. The physics is that we can envision a being with the minimum capability to create something. We can then also envision a being with the minimum to create something, + just a little more than that minimum.
Since we know a first cause could be anything, this is within the realm of possibilities. And since there is only one possibility of a specific universe without a God in its entirety, versus the infinite number of possible Gods that could have made that one specific universe, we get the odds of my conclusion.

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there.
— Philosophim

Exactly my point. What is: "the rest". ?? — 3017amen

The rest of the argument that flows from there. After the establishment of the definition of a God, just continue the rest of the argument.

Sorry for the piecemeal, but that's not true. The conscious and subconscious mind violate rules of Bivalence/LEM. So in essence, you yourself are outside of a logical description from logic. In essence you are illogical. Or, you can make the case whether you or God can transcend logic. Another reason you should explore the Anthropic Principle in your cosmological model. — 3017amen

No worry about the piecemeal, thank you for bringing up anything you're thinking about on this. I am new to the idea of your conscious and unconscious violating the LEM principle. The conscious mind is, and the unconscious mind is to my knowledge. Are you saying they exist in some intermediate phase between is, and is not? If this is too complicated and distracts from the original argument, lets not delve too far into it though. For the purposes of the argument, I am assuming logic, and we'll just have to consider the argument within this logic. If you disagree with logic, that it can in fact be violated, then we can chalk that up as a new flaw I had not considered. But if you want to see the flaw within logic, we'll likely have to remove the idea that logic can be violated to find its end.

No apologies necessary, thank you. We're critiquing here. — 3017amen

Cool beans then. =)

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) you are basically saying that a Being known as God is the first cause. That's all you've said to describe that Being known as God, no? — 3017amen

The only way I define a God is a first cause that has the minimum capability to design our specific universe. This is a possible first cause of our universe, not a necessary first cause of our universe. While yes, there is theory that there was something prior to the big bang, the specifics of what that is do not matter. The "big bang" is really just a place holder for "First cause that is not a being" or "First cause that is not a God". What is also important to note is that a first cause that is not a God, is ALSO not a necessary event, but one of many possibilities. I think the part that you might be missing is that is logically possible that a God is the creator of our universe, but it is also logically possible that there was no being that created our universe. That the "Big bang" could have been the first cause as well, (or whatever the first event of time was).

Or are you simply discussing a priori kinds of thinking/logical necessary truth's? If it's the latter, what's the point of significance? — 3017amen

Yes, you nailed it. This is what is going on here. This was done out of curiosity. I had heard the philosophical arguments for God, but found them lacking. On the other hand, atheists took their lack to mean that a God is something that is not possible. Because we can explain everything in terms of the laws as they are, it is simply irrational to discuss the idea of a God as a possibility.

I also found the definition of a God in these arguments lacking a simple baseline. I felt the problem with many of the cosmological arguments was that "God" had too much assumed prior to the discussion. A God in this argument is an extremely simple baseline to start off of.

Above all, I would like this argument to not be seen as an "attack" on theists or atheists. I like the truth, and truth should not have an agenda.

In the end, though my final conclusion has a flaw (still yet to be revealed!) what this argument does do is,

1. Put an end to the debate about infinite prior causality versus finite causality. Logically, there is a finite causality to our universe.
2. Proves the logical possibility of a God. This is different from a merely imagined God. No one can say, "A God is not possible". No, it is.
3. Changes the dynamic of the God/non-God discussion. I think atheists have denied the possibility of a God, and theists have denied the possibility that a first cause could not be a God, and it has been stuck this way for a very long time. I think they are both wrong. Both are possible, and discussions should go forward with this in mind.

That was my intention from the argument. There are of course many other consequences of this that I did not intend, but nevertheless are. An argument for logic should not be what we want, but for what is most logically sound.

a. The argument does remove the philosophical argument that a God must be good, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. It is not impossible that such a God could be the first cause, but that's only one of many possibilities for a God.
b. If you really delve deep into the idea of a first cause, you realize that it is entirely possible that a first cause happened that appeared to have a prior cause, but in fact, did not. I don't want to get into this now however, this is a major can of worms that deserves its own topic.
c. But if b is true, you may never be able to prove if there is a God, or not a God, only its possibility.

And that leads to my final (and flawed) conclusion! That for any one specific universe, while there is one possibility that its first cause is not a God, there are an infinite number of possibilities that its first cause was a God, due to how I defined a God. It sure sounds right by the points I laid out, but I'm definitely missing or neglecting something. Echarmion might be close in the ballpark if you want to read him.

Hello Echarmion, great contribution!

The most obvious flaw, broadly speaking, is that the argument is an exercise in creating information ex-nihilo, which is to say it operates on the assumption that stringing some mathematical operations together will somehow result in new information, which isn't actually possible. — Echarmion

I don't quite agree with this. What I'm trying to ascertain is what is logically possible, and impossible when thinking about two separate ideas. Finite, or infinite regress of causal events. The conclusion is that any time of causality will, by necessity, resolve to a finite causality.

Now perhaps logic doesn't apply to causality, could be. But we can't argue anything at that point. Assuming that logic can be applied to causality, this is the only logical conclusion which can be made. Now if I'm wrong on that, feel free to point out the error in the logic.

There is nothing stopping us from supposing an infinity of "natural" causes to counter the infinity of gods. — Echarmion

Close, VERY close. But can you put this in similar terms of the argument? Because in the argument I demonstrate there is 1 specific universe, and any alteration after that first cause would be a different specific universe.

So for example, imagine that the first cause of our universe is the big bang, no God. There are an infinite number of Gods that could have been a first cause that then created the big bang, and created a duplicate universe.

Now imagine that there is another possible universe with a slightly different big bang as a first cause, and your dominant hand is different. That is an entirely different specific universe. But for that specific universe, there would be an infinite number of possible Gods that could be the first cause, that created that big bang that lead to that universe.

This situation is not an equal comparison of infinity to infinity. Cantor proved that you could have greater infinity comparison called cardinality. We can simplify this easily though.

Take our universe, not any other. We can then realize there are an infinite possibilities of a concious being as a first cause creating our universe.

Now take any one of those Gods that created our specific universe. There is one of our specific universe, or a 1 to 1 ratio.

Basically the odds of a God creating our specific universe are an infinity of one-to-one ratios.

Again, you are VERY close to the flaw, but having a general feeling about it, versus being able to put it into logic that confirms it is where the rubber hits the road. I look forward to your reply, you might be the winner!

What about the option that nothing has a cause? — Echarmion

Because we know that's not an option. Causality is a necessary condition that results in a necessary outcome. A first cause is a condition that results in a necessary outcome, but the first cause does not have a prior necessary condition for its own outcome, its existence in this case.

Now if you can show that causality has not been proven to exist, feel free, but I'm taking the stance that causality is proven to exist.

I hope my definition of causality above also clears up any concerns you had about why and how.

Why means: This is seeking out a necessary precondition for this current existence, but we do not know how.
How means: This is the understood necessary precondition for this current existence, or the answer to the why.

So on point 3 when I state, "The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist."
There is no understood necessary precondition for why a first cause has to exist.
This can easily be answered with a why question. Why is there no necessary precondition on a first cause existing? It is because there can be no how. If there was, then it would not be a first cause, but there would exist some necessary precondition for the first causes existence.

Thus when I state on point 5, "Why is is all of causality infinite?", I am asking, "Is there a necessary precondition that entails all of causality must be infinite?"

So with this definition fleshed out more, I do not believe there is any contradiction. If you see one though, feel free to point it out!

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop. — Philosophim

I did not write this clearly enough, my apologies. My example was to show that the first cause of our universe might have been the big bang, or might have been something else that inevitably lead to the big bang. The "little pop" was just a suggestion to give you a more concrete visual.

The argument is sound but it lacks its existential meaning, — 3017amen

I think it carries plenty of meaning. First, it concludes with certainty that our universe has a first cause. It then concludes a basic tenant of what a first cause must entail; that its being is not bound to anything necessary. A first cause can be anything. That is the logically concluded nature of its existence. Its not a "maybe it could be anything," its the fact that a first cause is not bound by any rules in its existence.

This means that it is actually logical to think that a God is a possibility. It is also logical that the universe formed without a God as well. It actually negates all other cosmological arguments for God, and all other arguments that it is not possible for a God to have created the universe. I would say that's not insignificant.

And so in your item 3 above, if you were to parse the attributes of a first cause, you would have to address cosmological concepts (just to name a few) such as: determinacy/indeterminacy in physics/nature, contingency (what supports/explains the super-turtle) in nature, timelessness and time dependent (temporal time v. eternity and the beginning of time/BB) not to mention Being and becoming, consciousness, etc.. — 3017amen

If you understand that a first cause is not bound to necessarily be anything, then none of the above are necessary to address. Well, perhaps we could dive into what the idea of a "being" is, but its still unimportant.

If a being is X (whatever we conclude after a long debate)
Then there are an infinite number of X that are possible that could have created our specific universe.

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there.

LEM/bivalence would relate to a Dipolar feature of existence and consciousness and subconsciousness working together in an illogical manner — 3017amen

I never said that this is something that had to be. I'm only talking about what is possible, when anything which does not contradict itself is possible. As long as your definition of such a being is not self-contradictory, it is possible. It does not mean it is necessary or certain, just simply possible.

So, how can you explain a causational Being who presumably is logically necessary who has a consciousness? One of many questions would be, what are its attributes and what were the reasons for its existence? What was it doing prior to the BB? Since you introduced Being, who (what/where/how/why) caused and created existence; the burden is within your theory to provide answers to those questions (and more), using logic. — 3017amen

1. The being is not logically necessary. I'm just saying its a logical possibility. This is important, because prior to this argument, the idea of of a God being possible has never been actually proven. If a first cause can be anything, then it is possible that the first cause of our universe is a God. That is all the argument says about this.

2. You cannot ask a question, "Why does it exist" if it is a first cause, and look to something else. "Why does it exist" implies there is prior causality to its existence. A first cause has no prior causality. Why does it exist? It simply is, there is no why to its existence, besides the fact that it exists. Not because its an opinion, but because this is logically the only thing which can be. As for its attributes, who knows? All we know is that it had the power to create our universe. We cannot know from this reasoning, anything more than that.

3. What was it doing prior to the big bang? Who knows? Its tertiary to the argument which is being made here. The argument is about possibilities, and what we can predict from those possibilities. It has not conclusion as to what the first cause actually is. That is why the argument is called, "The probability of God".

If you are asking these things of the theory, its not providing that. The only things that the theory is providing is:

There is a first cause to our universe.
There is no rule of what a first cause must be
We do not know what that first cause is, so we can imagine all of the possibilities, and see if we can figure anything out.
There is one possibility of our universe's first cause being a non being.
There are infinite possibilities of our universe's first cause being a being which has the power to create our specific universe.
Therefore if we are to think on the possibilities, it is reasonable to conclude that the first cause of our universe is a God, versus the one chance that the first cause was not a God, or being.

I've already mentioned the flaw is in the conclusion. I don't believe any of the points themselves are flawed, but there are some missing attributes or points in between that if added, means the conclusion cannot hold. That's the puzzle. Great conversation so far btw, I hope I'm explaining the perspective and consequences of a first cause clearly enough for your liking.

"Theists and atheists agree there must be some ultimate explanation, some end to the infinite regress. But they disagree over which properties this 'ultimate being' must have". — Gnomon

The argument I am putting for is a logical proof that there must be a first cause. And due to the nature of what a first cause entails, the conclusion is that it could have been anything. Either a God, or a non God. You cannot conclude, "The first cause must be X" from this argument. You can only conclude a first cause is what must be, and that this first cause could be anything.

Atheists "disprove" your assertion of a First Cause for our Natural world, by asserting that automatic impersonal random Evolution itself could be a self-existent eternal Cause --- like gravity "it just is". — Gnomon

If we understand the arguments points then, this argument only backs what I'm saying. I believe the atheists are using this argument as a point to state there is no need for a God, and also to disprove the possibility of a God.

My argument would agree with atheists that yes, their's is one possibility. But it does not disprove the possibility of a God either. And I am not claiming a God could have been the first cause as in, "Well we don't know the start, so you know, maybe it could be." My statement is, "It is logically possible that a God exists from the conclusion that there is a first cause." No atheist can claim that a God is an illogical or impossible being at this point.

I was merely noting what you had already implied : that an ultimate First Cause would not "pop into existence", since it continually exists forever. — Gnomon

Its a bit of a semantics issue. Technically, if nothing existed prior to the first cause, there is no existence to pop into. We can imagine there being nothing, then being something, but prior to their being something, there was no one to observe the "nothing". That's a WHOLE can of beans for another topic, so I'll just say, "Yes" in the sense of it "appearing". But there is nothing to suggest that a first cause must continue to exist eternally after it has "appeared". There is nothing to say it could not exist eternally either. We cannot know either way through the premises of the argument.

The answer to a "why" question must be a reason or intention, not necessarily a "something" — Gnomon

BEING, per se, could be inert immobile existence, equivalent to nothingness. But "Creative BEING" would be able to use its inherent power of existence to cause other beings to exist. No one can deny that our existence implies the "power to be", and the sudden appearance of our world from who-knows-where is impossible without the prior Potential for existence. So I'm simply defining an eternal Law of Being that must logically cause & create all other laws, principles, and things in existence. — Gnomon

I like how you've defined being here. Very nice!

No. That is the understanding of Atheists who challenge Theists with "who created the creator?" — Gnomon

I wanted to assure you that we do not fall into the "Gods all the way down" argument. You are correct in assuming that when I mean first cause, I mean the first in the "chain". A being that can create a specific universe, but is not a first cause, is not a God according to this argument. Yes, it is possible that we could have beings that create beings that create sets, but the "specific universe" is what comes from the first cause. Whatever happens in that universe is irrelevant.

For Atheists, that might be true. But for my thesis, a multiplicity of gods is no better, no more powerful, than Creation by Random Accident. — Gnomon

In thinking on the possibilities of what a first cause must entail, I can see your possibility as one of many. But that is only within THIS argument, and not within your world view. I appreciate that you added your own world view to the discussion as much as you've addressed the topic. I think it comes from a place of great thought. I also appreciate the links and well informed replies!

I think you have a different definition of a God then I do, which is perfectly fine, and it seems nice. This argument here is more about a pure philosophical God, that is extremely limited in scope. Beyond meeting a minimum threshold of ability to create our specific universe, I cannot define a God in any other way from its morality, intentions, current existence, or any other attribute.

If you disagree with that or are uninterested in that, its perfectly fine. If though you are interested in taking it to its conclusions, does my assessment that if we look at our universe, there is only one possibility that its first cause was not a God, versus an infinite number of possibilities that the first cause was some type of God?

Hello EdgyRoy! Thanks for taking a stab at it.

I like, and agree, with your changing the terms to fit what works for you. I'll go ahead and clarify "Existince" however. Everything that is, exists. Everything that is not, does not. I as a human can create a rubber ducky. The ducky exists, but so do I. The ducky is the created, but we both still exist. Does that work?

So lets now address a "first cause". At this point, we should not be thinking of a creator. We are simply looking at the logic of whether causality is infinitely regressive, or if there must be a first cause.

I conclude there must be a first cause. Read over the points again if you're unsure how I did it. Then I conclude that the necessary rule of being a first cause, is that there is no constraint on what a first cause has to be. I've tried to flesh this out in a few ways over the posts I reply to 3017amen on. This is probably the most important part of the argument to understand. If you think it is flawed, feel free to point it out. If not, only then can we consider a creator.

Because anything could be a first cause, this means that the big bang itself, could have been a first cause. A first cause does not have to have agency. However, because a first cause could be anything, it also COULD be something with agency.

At first, it seems like it could be a being with agency, or a first cause with no agency at 50%. Just a coin flip. But I started thinking about it more. What would a creator necessarily have to have?

It would need a minimum ability to create the universe as it exists. Of course, a being could be a first cause that also had an ability greater than the minimum. Imagine a being with 42,000,000 as one possible God that creates our universe as it. Then imagine a being with 42,000,001 capability that creates our universe as it is. Up to infinite possible types of God's with greater power, that could have created our universe as is.

If that's the case, then for every one specific universe (ours), there are an infinite number of possible first causes that were Gods that created our universe exactly how it exists today.

But this does mean that one God would be more constrained over the other. Remember, we are building this from the ground up to a God, not from a God down to the ground. Are the premises illogical? Do I make a logic leap somewhere where I shouldn't? Good luck, and have fun thinking about it!

You have accepted your logically necessary universe, just just like have accepted your logically necessary first cause. It's as if you've presented a straw man argument. — 3017amen

Ok, we might just be at a semantics or context of use difference here. I'll try to cover what I think you're saying.

To be clear on what is logically necessary.

1. Our universe exists. We wouldn't be chatting otherwise! =) So, irrefutable.
2. I define what it is to be a first cause. By logical necessity, a first cause can have no restrictions as to what it can be. Has yet to be refuted.
3. There is one technical restriction to a first cause however. It cannot contradict itself. I cannot both be, and not be. I think that is a given, but I wanted to make sure that was also understood.

I would say if these are logically necessary, then the argument is sound. If something is not logically necessary, then it is not sound. You seem to state this is a problem but perhaps I'm not fully understanding what the issue is.

How am I breaking the law of excluded middle? LEM is defined as "In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20the%20law%20of,or%20its%20negation%20is%20true.&text=The%20principle%20should%20not%20be,is%20either%20true%20or%20false.

If it is logically necessary, then the proposition is true. Can you point out specifically where I have introduced something that can neither be true or false?

Now the logical possibility part comes into play when I talk about what is possible. If anything is possible for a first cause, then there you go. Anything is possible. You could have a dipolar God, a polar God, or a God that hates poles. =) The God that created the universe could be evil, it could be long dead, it could be neutral, it could be anything.

The only essential property of a God in the argument is that it has the power to create our universe. That is all. If it cannot, it is not a God. If it can, it is a God. Remove all theistic ideas, and focus simply on that as to what a God must be.

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop.

But what I do say at the end is that for every specific possible universe where the first cause is not a God, such as the big bang as the first cause of our universe, there are an infinite number of possible universes in which a different type of God could have come into the picture that created our specific universe. I use the "difference" purely in power and decision to create our universe exactly as it is.

I think you have a general enough understanding of the argument at this point, so I can now say where the flaw is, though I still leave you to figure out why its a flaw. It is NOT that there are an infinite number of possible Gods that could have created a specific universe without a God. It is my conclusion from this point that if we are to predict whether our universe was created by a God, or its first cause was not a God, that it is infinite to 1 that the cause was a God.

Its VERY tricky. A big hint again is in the little logic equation I gave you earlier of A=A, but A0 = B1 (in another universe).

But first, feel free to flesh out all of the points prior to this. I want to make sure you're satisfied that the prior points are logical. Once you do, try to tackle the last part. If you can't get it, its fine. It took me a LOT of time to figure out what was wrong with it. At that point, if you can't figure it out, I'll reveal the flaw.

I think she's appealing to centrists, who are going to ultimately decide this election.

FYI, I'm not really challenging you personally so much as I am the philosophy profession at large. If they knew what they were doing, you'd already know everything I'm saying and have plenty to contribute to it. — Hippyhead

HippyHead, if you want to write a forum post on attacking philosophy at large, it would probably be a great discussion I would enjoy. I just don't want to distract from what I'm posting here, which you seem to understand. No offense taken, we'll talk on another topic another time. =)

Are you sure? I mean it sounds like you are arguing cosmological existence by way of logical necessity, no? — 3017amen

Hm, I am not arguing cosmological existence by necessity. We already know we live in a universe.

What I am arguing is that our universe had at least one first cause. This argument does not address anything outside of our present universe. It does not address anything in regards to time. If you want to wonder if there is time before a first cause, it can be fun to think on, but is irrelevant to the argument. A first cause has no contingency. A first cause might be eternal, or it might not.

The first step is the realization that if we do not know what the first cause is, but we realize that there are no rules on a first cause, that it could have been anything. There are no rules or restrictions on what can be a first cause. If there were, we would ask, "What is causing the first cause to be restricted?" Ergo, we're not really talking about a first cause.

This is truly the logical necessity. Feel free to try and break it, but I nor anyone I have spoken with has been able to. I didn't point this out in the beginning, because I was hoping someone would.

We can conclude from this that if a first cause could be anything, and we do not know what the first cause is, what are the possibilities? They are of course, infinite. Fortunately, we know that our universe exists. At some point there was a first cause of our universe. First, I stated, "Lets use the big bang as the first cause". Doesn't matter if it is or not, the point is we can imagine a first cause that does not require a being as a creator. I conclude however, that there is only one of our universe, and that if there is any alteration in the universe after the big bang (the first cause) from our own, it is actually a different universe.

The first cause could also be a "God". But what is a God? It is simply a being that can create our universe in its identical form. This is a minimum requirement. But of course its also possible a first cause that is a being could have formed with higher than the minimum requirement. In fact, infinitely so.

In the end, this means that for any one universe has a first cause which is not a God, there are an infinite number of possible first causes that would have been Gods instead.

The logic problem is self-contained within the premises of the argument, and will require no outside sources. Somewhere there is a flaw. I've given a few hints.

1. Go back to the formula I gave you to really understand what a first cause entails, and what I mean by a God being a first cause to the big bang, which itself is one possibility of a first cause.

2. Make sure you understand and accept the logic of what it means to be a first cause in the argument. Feel free to zone out for ten minutes or so as your mind explodes with the possibilities. One of the joys of philosophy!

3. Come back to the point in which I narrow those possibilities into two camps. See how I identify a God. See how I identity a universe. See if the relation between the two is fair.

You're doing VERY well by the way. This is not written anywhere else. You have never heard of these concepts before. I hope above all that it is fun and triggers that philosophical itch to tackle something in a new way!

Yes, conscious existence. — 3017amen

I don't want to say your wrong, but solution is going to be more than a one line answer. I mention a God is a "Being" which could be conscious or non-conscious of its decisions.

I don't believe there's anything obviously wrong that I did in setting up the precepts of a God. But is there anything wrong or unfair that I did in setting up the precepts of a "specific universe"?

Other than a Dipolar God, not sure... I'm stumped — 3017amen

Fair enough. I can say at this point that those points are not where I found the flaw.

Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint!
— Philosophim

That multiverse is logically possible? — 3017amen

Yes, multiverse theory is very possible at this point. Our universe would be a part of it regardless.
Since we do not know the first cause, of our universe, we're thinking about all the possibilities that it could have been, given the logical conclusion of what a first cause would entail.

Take a look again at the logic where A0 could equal B1 in another possible universe. Now think about what my definition of a God is. Then think about what my definition for a specific universe is. Have I missed something?

I said "If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory."
— Philosophim

You replied

What I know about the scientific method is that a hypothesis is formulated and based on it certain predictions are made. If and when these predictions are observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. In case the predictions are not observed, the hypothesis is refuted. — TheMadFool

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Hypotheses.html

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability"."

Look, I've made the same mistake of critisizing someone's points without anything to back it in the past. I get how it feels, and I'm not going to rag you for it. Just please do a little research on a claim before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about next time.

So back to your point

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. — TheMadFool

You now know that you cannot have confirmation of a hypothesis if the hypothesis is not falsifiable. If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. If you would like to chat about a few ways I've tried to bring reincarnation into a scientific method, we can continue. If you are not interested in discussing how we can make a reincarnation theory that is falsifiable, then you have your answer.

You appear to be assuming, like almost all commentators on the subject, that a God can only exist or not, one or the other. Such an assumption is seriously challenged by an observation of reality, which reveals that the vast majority of reality, space, does not fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" categories. — Hippyhead

Hippyhead, it is obvious at this point that you have not read the actual argument. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to keep bumping my post, that's fine, but until you stop attacking that straw man in your world over there, I'm not going to consider your posts as having any value to the topic.

Ooh, good post!

I think that one of the flaws associated with a causational God not having any attributes could be problematic to some ( your items 4 thru 9). — 3017amen

If you think there is a flaw there, can you figure it out? You have to have more than suspicions!

For those reasons, causation or first cause ex nihilo has to consider a dipolar attribute of some sort. — 3017amen

Excellent conclusion. I can flesh that out within the argument here (I remember having this in the paper years ago, but didn't want to get too in depth on the forum post)

If you recognize that our universe's big bang could have been a first cause, and a God could have been a first cause that created our specific universe through a big bang, then you are realizing that any first cause, could have also created what could have been considered a first cause in another alternative universe.

In other words.
A = First cause
B = has a prior cause
# = possible universe

A=>A (first cause)
But A could also be B in another created universe A0= B1 in another possible universe(B has a prior cause)
In total this means:
A0 => A0
A0 = B1
A1 => A1
A1 => B1

Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint!

But since only my mind can be known, aren't you really just me?

Thank you Gnomon for participating! You spent a good deal of time on your post, and will attempt to honor you in kind. We may come into disagreement at point, but know that it is from a place of respect.

c> Nothing cannot be a Cause — Gnomon

You note this as a translation to my point "There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)"

I want to make sure we're on the same page with this. I am not claiming, "Nothing caused X". That would be the continuation of "Y caused X", and would not be a prime cause. Nothing, did not cause X. X simply is, without any reason for its being. This is a key point.

If you believe in a God, then you believe this as well right? You don't believe anything caused a God right? A God simply is. It has no reason for its being, besides that it is. But we're also jumping the gun here.

there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist
— Philosophim
Yes, the Creator makes the rules. Our local First Cause could be an Eternal Principle of Causation. — Gnomon

Before we even dive into what the definition of a God would be, we have to address the logic of whether there is infinite causality, or a finite starting point first. The points and conclusion that I hold are that there MUST be a first cause, and describe what exactly a first cause must entail.

At this point, I'm not assuming there is a creator, or there is not a creator. I am simply examining whether we can logically conclude that there is an infinite regress of causality, or if there inevitably is a first cause. I conclude based on the logic of what both entail, that all things inevitably arrive at a first cause.

If you believe a creator is a first cause, then that's fine, I say that's a possiblity after the initial logic claim. But it is also possible under the logic that a first cause is NOT a creator. You cannot claim that a creator had to be the first cause, until you can disprove the claim where I show a first cause would not be bound by any rules as to what it had to be.

I'll sum up what you need to disprove first with the below summary.

1. A first cause has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.
2. As a first cause has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules that bind it to having to be a particular existence. It simply is.
3. For if you stated, "A first cause MUST be a particular existence", then there is a reason behind that. But if there is a reason behind that, it is not a prime cause, but relies on a previous cause that bounds it to some necessity of being".

I get it, this part trips people up a little until they figure out what is actually being said.

Simplified further.
A = A A is a prime cause.
A -> B is true. A prime cause can cause another.
C -> A cannot be true.

If you say A MUST be X, why?
If A MUST be X
you are claiming X defines -> A, because MUST implies A is limited in what it can be by X. Such a limitation is a rule outside of A, which would then be a cause of A's being.
Since X -> A cannot be true
A is not defined by anything else, and thus can only be understood as its existence, not by something that is not its existence.

Does that imply that the First Cause simply popped into existence at an arbitrary point in eternity, for no reason at all? — Gnomon

Yep. If you imply there is a reason, you imply something BEHIND that first cause. A first cause does not have a reason. It simply is. And this is not as a cop out btw (I undersood what you meant though). This is a logical conclusion, and in fact, the only conclusion I can draw.

The existence of the universe has only one "Why" answer — Gnomon

Until you show the above logic as incorrect, this cannot be claimed.

c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. — Gnomon

No, if it is a first cause, it did not cause itself. It was not, then it was. If it has the power of eternal self-existence, as a first cause, it does, because it does. Remember that each of these points applies equally to a God (as I defined it remember, not any particular God).

In our real world experience, "Creative Power" is what we call Potential, to bring into existence something that does not yet exist. Intelligent Creative Power would have the power & know-how to create intelligent beings. — Gnomon

This is a fine way to define it. As long as you understand the underlying concept that at any point of creative power, we can imagine a greater creative power, we're good!

Relative to our imperfect finite universe, the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential — Gnomon

I don't think this is logical. Think of it this way. I can make a house. But that might be my limit. (The universe). Someone else might be able to make lots of houses. Then houses, skyscrapers etc. We can keep adding more to what is created.

So imagine our entire universe. If we are thinking in terms without limitations as to what a first cause would be, then the first cause could be something with only the power to make one universe, our own. But then a first cause could have formed that could have created two universes, but that's it. Or 3. Or more, or infinite. But of course, the infinitely powerful God is only one of an infinite other possible gods.

13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being . . . An infinite number of beings — Philosophim

I should have written that as, "An infinite number of possible beings". Remember, we're talking about all the possibilities that entail under the rules of a first cause when we do not know what that first cause is.

Ok, I think that addresses the points that are still pertinent to the start. Feel free to ask for clarifications, and of course, keep trying to find holes!