RE: The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument
May 9, 2015 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm by reasonablerob.)
Apologies for the wait, it's been a busy few days.
Okay, way too many posts to respond to everyone individually, so I'll try and respond to the broad counter-arguments.
A lot of appeals to physics here, but I'm afraid I'm a Philosopher and not a physicist, so the persuasiveness of that to me will be limited by the fact that the maths for all of this is way beyond me, so I would have to accept any conclusions that Physics has on the subject on a certain level of faith. I would also contest that physics or mathematics gives us a truthful picture of "things in themselves" as opposed to a mere model that explains appearances. I'm sure that 20 years down the line, there will probably be a different model of physics again that may itself have very different implications for causality and time and a myriad other things. As truth doesn't change, but scientific consensus and theory do change, scientific consensus and theory cannot equal truth until they reach a point where they cease to change (but how would you ever know that the theory has reached a point where it can no longer change?)
You may note that in my original post, I never claimed that everything must have a cause, or must be impermanent. I merely noted that the things we experience seem to all require something further that brings it about, a cause, or mover if you will. It is a contingent observation, rather than a necessary truth. Thus the accusation of special pleading doesn't hold, as all I'm claiming is that there is a self-sufficient supporting thing for the category of things within our universe that seem to require external support. The criticism on the basis of quantum mechanics is fair, my belief is based on causality and time as being conditions for the possibility of human understanding. But I don't see how we can operate any other way. If the universe doesn't operate according to explicable concepts of time and causation then we literally cannot understand why anything is the way it is, or where it would have come from and must therefore remain agnostic about all things, which shoots atheism in the foot just as surely as anything else.
In conclusion, I am probably wrong, but everyone else probably is too. My experience of philosophy has taught me that every belief system has major problems with justifying itself in terms of its fundamental assumptions(including the scientific one), so what you believe is largely a choice. (for example my argument does allow for an infinite universe, or an infinite regress, I just don't think that either of those things are likely, so I don't believe them) To demonstrate, my belief system requires assuming that there is a gap in knowledge between things as they appear to be (colours, sounds, smells, tastes), and as they are independent of experience (????). The scientific world-view has its own irreducible assumptions, such as the assumption that a pattern of correlation can establish causation (I've seen 1 million swans and they were all white, therefore all swans are white). However both world views are consistent, given those axioms, so either can be reasonably chosen as a belief system.
Okay, way too many posts to respond to everyone individually, so I'll try and respond to the broad counter-arguments.
A lot of appeals to physics here, but I'm afraid I'm a Philosopher and not a physicist, so the persuasiveness of that to me will be limited by the fact that the maths for all of this is way beyond me, so I would have to accept any conclusions that Physics has on the subject on a certain level of faith. I would also contest that physics or mathematics gives us a truthful picture of "things in themselves" as opposed to a mere model that explains appearances. I'm sure that 20 years down the line, there will probably be a different model of physics again that may itself have very different implications for causality and time and a myriad other things. As truth doesn't change, but scientific consensus and theory do change, scientific consensus and theory cannot equal truth until they reach a point where they cease to change (but how would you ever know that the theory has reached a point where it can no longer change?)
You may note that in my original post, I never claimed that everything must have a cause, or must be impermanent. I merely noted that the things we experience seem to all require something further that brings it about, a cause, or mover if you will. It is a contingent observation, rather than a necessary truth. Thus the accusation of special pleading doesn't hold, as all I'm claiming is that there is a self-sufficient supporting thing for the category of things within our universe that seem to require external support. The criticism on the basis of quantum mechanics is fair, my belief is based on causality and time as being conditions for the possibility of human understanding. But I don't see how we can operate any other way. If the universe doesn't operate according to explicable concepts of time and causation then we literally cannot understand why anything is the way it is, or where it would have come from and must therefore remain agnostic about all things, which shoots atheism in the foot just as surely as anything else.
In conclusion, I am probably wrong, but everyone else probably is too. My experience of philosophy has taught me that every belief system has major problems with justifying itself in terms of its fundamental assumptions(including the scientific one), so what you believe is largely a choice. (for example my argument does allow for an infinite universe, or an infinite regress, I just don't think that either of those things are likely, so I don't believe them) To demonstrate, my belief system requires assuming that there is a gap in knowledge between things as they appear to be (colours, sounds, smells, tastes), and as they are independent of experience (????). The scientific world-view has its own irreducible assumptions, such as the assumption that a pattern of correlation can establish causation (I've seen 1 million swans and they were all white, therefore all swans are white). However both world views are consistent, given those axioms, so either can be reasonably chosen as a belief system.
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
― Winston S. Churchill
― Winston S. Churchill
