(October 12, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If some first, un-caused cause were so easy to establish, why haven't we seen any of that? Hell, you could have handled that in your post......right? In the meantime........
Suppose I could provide you with a valid statement that implied a future event could be the cause of a past event, would you accept this as likely to be true? What if I could -also- show the statement to be sound, particularly in the light of the "first cause" claims inability to do so? That would make it an even more compelling argument than the first cause argument, yes? You would have better reason to believe that the arrow of time (and causality) flowed symmetrically than you would have reason to believe in asymmetric time (and with it goes the very -notion- of a "first cause"). Correct? But.......would you?
There's a problem with the system (many, actually, the above is another), which is infinite regress. But the system is -not- the thing it describes, the seeming behavior of the universe. A problem of the system is not necessarrily a problem of the universe. Infinite regress makes it difficult to generate an answer, but it doesn't have -anything- to do with what the correct answer is or might be.
I'm interested in the case you seem to want to present... Go ahead.
