(July 13, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think that’s where my head is these days as far as philosophical positions go. It seems to me that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

I suspect you're not going to like this but...

What you've said here is a traditional argument for a First Cause. 

As we discussed before, the Aristotelian First Cause isn't a cause in time like the Big Bang. It is what needs to be -- right now -- in order for other things to be. For anything else at all to be the case, we have to have existence. Therefore, existence is the First Cause. 

You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas). 

As always, to get from this Aristotelian First Cause to the God of the Bible or the Koran requires a lot more arguing.

(July 13, 2019 at 11:03 pm)8Belaqua Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think that’s where my head is these days as far as philosophical positions go. It seems to me that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

I suspect you're not going to like this but...

What you've said here is a traditional argument for a First Cause. 

As we discussed before, the Aristotelian First Cause isn't a cause in time like the Big Bang. It is what needs to be -- right now -- in order for other things to be. For anything else at all to be the case, we have to have existence. Therefore, existence is the First Cause. 

You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas). 

As always, to get from this Aristotelian First Cause to the God of the Bible or the Koran requires a lot more arguing.

People would only like or not like what you say if you are somehow of any conceivable consequence to them in their minds.

In your case that consequence can only possibly have any existence in your mind, and not in those of others.

(July 13, 2019 at 6:52 am)Nogba Wrote: First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.

every thing that existes must have a reason that made him come to existence right ?
you can't create something from nothing.
nothing comes to existance by coincidence, but if you say so then what brings this law of coincidence in existance.
the coincidence law it self need something to bring him to existance

the probleme is that if every thing needs a first reason to existe,
nothing will existe in first place.

why is that ?
because we need that very first reason that doesn't need a reason to exist that will begin the chaine of causes.

this first causes is called god, that will catalyst the existance.

So you have shown that it is NOT true that everything needs a reason to exist. But you didn't show that this is true of just *one* thing. And, in fact, there are *many* events in the real world that are NOT caused: they are, fundamentally, random.

So, to label something 'god' simply because it is uncaused is making an identification  that is unwarranted. You have not, for example, shown that any uncaused causes are *intelligent*. And, in fact, most quantum events are uncaused but not intelligent.

You also did not address the possibility of an infinite regress of causes.

---

(July 13, 2019 at 8:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 6:32 pm)Aegon Wrote: I don't know why any of this First Cause stuff is necessary. You can theoretically reject the notion of the first cause entirely, as all things seem to be relative to other things, i.e. are caused by something and cause something themselves. Actually, in my opinion (which means please be gentle if I sound stupid) it's easier to argue that there is no first cause because nothing is actually absolute and independent. It's what we know, it's what we've observed. I have no compelling reason to come up with a First Cause, and I definitely do not have any compelling reason to introduce a God into the equation to explain it.

The principle of sufficient reason is compelling enough to illicit concern over the first cause. This doesn't mean one must conclude "God"... but, hey, it asks a pretty good question: Why does all this shit exist? True, "Godidit" is a poor answer. But still. There's an unanswered question floating about.

And I see the problem as assuming there is a *cause* for everything to exist. Since, for example, any cause must exist prior to causing anything else to exist, there is ultimately no cause for why things exist.

(July 13, 2019 at 11:46 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And I see the problem as assuming there is a *cause* for everything to exist. Since, for example, any cause must exist prior to causing anything else to exist, there is ultimately no cause for why things exist.

The Aristotelian/Thomist argument uses "prior" in an essential way, not a temporal way.

It would be clearer to get rid of the modern English word "cause" and write it like this: "Everything that exists requires that something else is the case -- right now -- in order to exist." 

As an example we could talk about human life. Human life requires, among many other things, the warmth of the sun. If the warmth of the sun suddenly disappeared, we would freeze and there would be no more human life. 

It's true that the sun existed before people, but that's not crucial to this essential chain. We say that the warmth of the sun is "prior," in this case, because if it stopped people would stop. But if people stopped, the warmth of the sun wouldn't stop. That's essential priority. 

The warmth of the sun depends for its existence on the sun. The sun depends for its existence on hydrogen atoms. 

So hydrogen atoms are essentially prior, because if they disappeared the sun would disappear. But if the sun disappeared, there would still be lots of other hydrogen atoms, elsewhere. 

The hydrogen atoms depend for their existence on space-time. Even if hydrogen and space-time appeared together, we would still say that space-time is essentially prior, because if it disappeared hydrogen would disappear too. But if hydrogen disappeared, we'd still have space-time. 

I don't know if the OP is aware of this, or if he's arguing the temporal Kalam argument. But traditional First Cause arguments are not about time.

(July 13, 2019 at 11:03 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think that’s where my head is these days as far as philosophical positions go. It seems to me that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

I suspect you're not going to like this but...

What you've said here is a traditional argument for a First Cause. 

As we discussed before, the Aristotelian First Cause isn't a cause in time like the Big Bang. It is what needs to be -- right now -- in order for other things to be. For anything else at all to be the case, we have to have existence. Therefore, existence is the First Cause. 

You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas). 

As always, to get from this Aristotelian First Cause to the God of the Bible or the Koran requires a lot more arguing.

Yes, as I recall, we were having what I thought was a fun and engaging conversation; I had offered you several counterpoints to what you speak of in your response above, and then you ditched me. 😛 Also, I have no reason to like or not like any conclusion that is grounded in sound reasoning and evidence. If a first cause can be persuasively argued for, and supported with evidence, then I’ll believe one exists. I have no agenda regarding atheism versus deism, versus theism, etc. If anything, theism would be. my preferred position. But, my personal feelings are irrelevant. The fact remains that a sound argument for a first cause is not also a sound argument for personal, conscious deity. That is the conclusion the OP is trying to reach with his cosmological argument. He can’t get there.

(July 14, 2019 at 12:52 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, as I recall, we were having what I thought was a fun and engaging conversation; I had offered you several counterpoints to what you speak of in your response above, and then you ditched me. 😛  

That's funny, because in your last post there I got the sense you were done with it, and I didn't want to be annoying by keeping on. My mistake. 

Quote: the fact remains that a first cause does not prove a personal, conscious deity. That is the conclusion the OP is trying to reach with his cosmological argument. He can’t get there soundly.

Yeah, it seems that nobody here ever gets to the point of arguing that the First Cause is conscious, or good, or any of the other things. I don't know if this is because they don't know how, or because we always chase them off by not accepting the first step, or what it is. 

Maybe if we backed off a little, the OP would be willing to argue that stuff. Again, Aristotelians and Thomists think there are additional arguments, once the First Cause is demonstrated, to show also that it is conscious and good. I've never seen those discussed here. 

I hope the OP is willing to ignore the insult-only people, and have patience with those who are more open-minded.

(July 14, 2019 at 1:00 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 14, 2019 at 12:52 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, as I recall, we were having what I thought was a fun and engaging conversation; I had offered you several counterpoints to what you speak of in your response above, and then you ditched me. 😛  

That's funny, because in your last post there I got the sense you were done with it, and I didn't want to be annoying by keeping on. My mistake.

No problem! Anyone willing to engage with me honestly and thoughtfully will never be an annoyance, even if we hold antithetical beliefs on a particular subject.

Quote: the fact remains that a first cause does not prove a personal, conscious deity. That is the conclusion the OP is trying to reach with his cosmological argument. He can’t get there soundly.

Quote:Yeah, it seems that nobody here ever gets to the point of arguing that the First Cause is conscious, or good, or any of the other things. I don't know if this is because they don't know how, or because we always chase them off by not accepting the first step, or what it is.

. I have no problem accepting a first cause for the sake of the argument, in order to see where they can get to from there. But, in my experience, most theists try to bridge that gap with scripture, and that just isn’t going to be enough for most rational skeptics

Quote:Maybe if we backed off a little, the OP would be willing to argue that stuff. Again, Aristotelians and Thomists think there are additional arguments, once the First Cause is demonstrated, to show also that it is conscious and good. I've never seen those discussed here.

I would enjoy seeing a demonstration of those here. I wish we had more theist participation on the forums. I‘m not a huge fan of circle jerks. They aren’t very good exercise for the brain. 😛

(July 14, 2019 at 12:15 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 11:46 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And I see the problem as assuming there is a *cause* for everything to exist. Since, for example, any cause must exist prior to causing anything else to exist, there is ultimately no cause for why things exist.

The Aristotelian/Thomist argument uses "prior" in an essential way, not a temporal way.

It would be clearer to get rid of the modern English word "cause" and write it like this: "Everything that exists requires that something else is the case -- right now -- in order to exist." 

As an example we could talk about human life. Human life requires, among many other things, the warmth of the sun. If the warmth of the sun suddenly disappeared, we would freeze and there would be no more human life. 

It's true that the sun existed before people, but that's not crucial to this essential chain. We say that the warmth of the sun is "prior," in this case, because if it stopped people would stop. But if people stopped, the warmth of the sun wouldn't stop. That's essential priority. 

The warmth of the sun depends for its existence on the sun. The sun depends for its existence on hydrogen atoms. 

So hydrogen atoms are essentially prior, because if they disappeared the sun would disappear. But if the sun disappeared, there would still be lots of other hydrogen atoms, elsewhere. 

The hydrogen atoms depend for their existence on space-time. Even if hydrogen and space-time appeared together, we would still say that space-time is essentially prior, because if it disappeared hydrogen would disappear too. But if hydrogen disappeared, we'd still have space-time. 

I don't know if the OP is aware of this, or if he's arguing the temporal Kalam argument. But traditional First Cause arguments are not about time.

Sorry, but yes, causality *is* all about time. In fact, causality only makes sense within time (and therefor only within the universe).

The 'priority' you are wanting is a confused conglomerate of *logical* necessity and physical causality. The problem with logical necessity is that *nothing* is logically necessary. Not even existence. Logic only works when we have prior *assumptions* that may or may not correspond to reality.

The point is that Aristotelianism (and later Thomism) are attempts to do metaphysics that do not correspond with the 'facts on the ground', so to speak.

---

(July 14, 2019 at 12:15 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 11:46 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And I see the problem as assuming there is a *cause* for everything to exist. Since, for example, any cause must exist prior to causing anything else to exist, there is ultimately no cause for why things exist.

The Aristotelian/Thomist argument uses "prior" in an essential way, not a temporal way.

It would be clearer to get rid of the modern English word "cause" and write it like this: "Everything that exists requires that something else is the case -- right now -- in order to exist." 

As an example we could talk about human life. Human life requires, among many other things, the warmth of the sun. If the warmth of the sun suddenly disappeared, we would freeze and there would be no more human life. 

It's true that the sun existed before people, but that's not crucial to this essential chain. We say that the warmth of the sun is "prior," in this case, because if it stopped people would stop. But if people stopped, the warmth of the sun wouldn't stop. That's essential priority. 

The warmth of the sun depends for its existence on the sun. The sun depends for its existence on hydrogen atoms. 

So hydrogen atoms are essentially prior, because if they disappeared the sun would disappear. But if the sun disappeared, there would still be lots of other hydrogen atoms, elsewhere. 

The hydrogen atoms depend for their existence on space-time. Even if hydrogen and space-time appeared together, we would still say that space-time is essentially prior, because if it disappeared hydrogen would disappear too. But if hydrogen disappeared, we'd still have space-time. 

I don't know if the OP is aware of this, or if he's arguing the temporal Kalam argument. But traditional First Cause arguments are not about time.

I'm going to elaborate a bit more.

The sun is 'prior' to people in your sense because if the sun stopped, so would people. Why is that true? Because of the causal nature of physical reality and the way that fusion reactions in the sun produce energy that is conveyed by light to the earth, promoting photosynthesis and thereby production of foods that humans eat. I tis NOT a *logical* priority, but a priority that is due to the laws of physics.

Similarly, the hydrogen atoms are prior to the sun only in the sense that stars like the sun are made of hydrogen atoms. But they are made so only because of the physical laws that govern how hydrogen acts (especially that it has mass, so is subject to gravity, that the nuclei can undergo fusion, thereby giving energy, etc). There is nothing *logically* necessary in this, only *physically* necessary because of the natural laws that are operative.

Similarly, spacetime is also subject to physical laws and those laws are partly responsible for the production of hydrogen nuclei in the early universe. Once again, it is a *physical* causality that is based on the existence of *time* that is underlying the 'necessity'.

To the extent that the First Cause arguments are not about time, they are not about causality at all. To the extent that they are, they only apply within the universe and so are irrelevant to the existence of anything outside of the universe.

ALL known 'effects' (i.e, events that are caused) are caused by things within the universe.

(July 14, 2019 at 1:42 am)polymath257 Wrote: The sun is 'prior' to people in your sense because if the sun stopped, so would people. Why is that true? Because of the causal nature of physical reality and the way that fusion reactions in the sun produce energy that is conveyed by light to the earth, promoting photosynthesis and thereby production of foods that humans eat. I tis NOT a *logical* priority, but a priority that is due to the laws of physics.

Similarly, the hydrogen atoms are prior to the sun only in the sense that stars like the sun are made of hydrogen atoms. But they are made so only because of the physical laws that govern how hydrogen acts (especially that it has mass, so is subject to gravity, that the nuclei can undergo fusion, thereby giving energy, etc). There is nothing *logically* necessary in this, only *physically* necessary because of the natural laws that are operative.

Similarly, spacetime is also subject to physical laws and those laws are partly responsible for the production of hydrogen nuclei in the early universe. Once again, it is a *physical* causality that is based on the existence of *time* that is underlying the 'necessity'.

To the extent that the First Cause arguments are not about time, they are not about causality at all. To the extent that they are, they only apply within the universe and so are irrelevant to the existence of anything outside of the universe.

ALL known 'effects' (i.e, events that are caused) are caused by things within the universe.

Right, you're speaking very properly about cause-and-effect as we think of it today. Aristotle used a Greek word that gets translated as "cause," but has a different semantic range. For him, if X is necessary for Y to exist, then X is a cause of Y. In his sense, the sun is a cause of me (one of many) because without it I wouldn't be here. I understand that this isn't how we use the term today. 

Still, when we're talking about the First Cause argument that Aristotle and Thomas used, we have to read what they said. 

Nor are they saying that a thing is logically necessary, in the way you're using it. It is in complete agreement with the known facts of science, however, to say that for the sun to exist hydrogen atoms have to exist. And this is the way Aristotle's First Cause argument uses the concept of cause. 

So you are right that "To the extent that the First Cause arguments are not about time, they are not about causality at all," as you use the term "cause." But that's not relevant to what Aristotle and Thomas said. The typical example is that we say your parents caused you, in that they came first and what they did made you exist. And you continue to exist even if they're gone. This is contingent rather than essential cause. The First Cause argument, however, is all about things that, if they ceased to exist, would cause the end of all simultaneous things in an essential chain. 

And you are right that all known effects are within the universe. This is true in Aristotle and Thomas's version, also. Everything that is held in existence by something prior on the essential chain is within the universe. 

You are right, also, to point to the laws of physics as being necessary for the existence of everything. The laws are non-physical things which are essentially prior to anything existing. They are not temporally prior, I'm pretty sure, because the laws of nature and the universe are co-existent. (This is why the Gospel of John specifies that the Logos, which is an old Greek term for the principles and logic of the universe, was there from the very beginning.)

(July 14, 2019 at 2:36 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 14, 2019 at 1:42 am)polymath257 Wrote: The sun is 'prior' to people in your sense because if the sun stopped, so would people. Why is that true? Because of the causal nature of physical reality and the way that fusion reactions in the sun produce energy that is conveyed by light to the earth, promoting photosynthesis and thereby production of foods that humans eat. I tis NOT a *logical* priority, but a priority that is due to the laws of physics.

Similarly, the hydrogen atoms are prior to the sun only in the sense that stars like the sun are made of hydrogen atoms. But they are made so only because of the physical laws that govern how hydrogen acts (especially that it has mass, so is subject to gravity, that the nuclei can undergo fusion, thereby giving energy, etc). There is nothing *logically* necessary in this, only *physically* necessary because of the natural laws that are operative.

Similarly, spacetime is also subject to physical laws and those laws are partly responsible for the production of hydrogen nuclei in the early universe. Once again, it is a *physical* causality that is based on the existence of *time* that is underlying the 'necessity'.

To the extent that the First Cause arguments are not about time, they are not about causality at all. To the extent that they are, they only apply within the universe and so are irrelevant to the existence of anything outside of the universe.

ALL known 'effects' (i.e, events that are caused) are caused by things within the universe.

Right, you're speaking very properly about cause-and-effect as we think of it today. Aristotle used a Greek word that gets translated as "cause," but has a different semantic range. For him, if X is necessary for Y to exist, then X is a cause of Y. In his sense, the sun is a cause of me (one of many) because without it I wouldn't be here. I understand that this isn't how we use the term today. 

Still, when we're talking about the First Cause argument that Aristotle and Thomas used, we have to read what they said.

How about if I just disagree with what they said? The notion of necessary versus conditional existence is, I believe, a very bad philosophical mistake that does not, again, represent a useful division.

Quote:Nor are they saying that a thing is logically necessary, in the way you're using it. It is in complete agreement with the known facts of science, however, to say that for the sun to exist hydrogen atoms have to exist. And this is the way Aristotle's First Cause argument uses the concept of cause.

But, again, it is only the case because of the physical laws.

Quote:So you are right that "To the extent that the First Cause arguments are not about time, they are not about causality at all," as you use the term "cause." But that's not relevant to what Aristotle and Thomas said. The typical example is that we say your parents caused you, in that they came first and what they did made you exist. And you continue to exist even if they're gone. This is contingent rather than essential cause. The First Cause argument, however, is all about things that, if they ceased to exist, would cause the end of all simultaneous things in an essential chain.

And this seems to me to be badly incoherent.

Quote:And you are right that all known effects are within the universe. This is true in Aristotle and Thomas's version, also. Everything that is held in existence by something prior on the essential chain is within the universe. 

You are right, also, to point to the laws of physics as being necessary for the existence of everything. The laws are non-physical things which are essentially prior to anything existing. They are not temporally prior, I'm pretty sure, because the laws of nature and the universe are co-existent. (This is why the Gospel of John specifies that the Logos, which is an old Greek term for the principles and logic of the universe, was there from the very beginning.)

No, that is merely definitional, not being prior. And, again, I think Ari and Thom are simply incoherent (in some matters) and counter to reality (in others). Their whole metaphysics is deeply flawed.

---

My parents 'caused' me, again, through physical laws.