[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Joel]

What if the universe is an effect and the big bang was the cause?

[Mystic]

I expect the universe may be an example of an uncaused cause. However, that doesn't mean that an infinite regress contradicts itself.

The universe being an uncaused cause doesn't imply an infinite regress contradicts itself, but the proof I showed, at least to me, seems to imply that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which - to add (to my previous post), is just as much a problem if you choose to terminate at "the universe".....that's why this problem -with logic- seems to suggest to me that there's something about causality that we do not understand. Our premise is flawed, if this were the case it would be unsurprising that we can't come to a conclusion that seems to fit with our observations.
(it's been suggested, and mentioned in this thread that the problem might be that "cause" and "time" are inseparable - before time, no cause, but again, this could be a problem with language, like mp/mt)

[Mystic]

What if the universe is an effect and the big bang was the cause?

Well we getting into semantics. You can say the universe at time zero is the big bang. And it would be an uncaused cause possibly.

Therefore this argument doesn't prove either God or the Universe is the not the first cause, but it does show there needs to be an initial cause.

It took me a while thought to realize the cosmological argument ain't so strong.

However, "everything requires a cause" is more comprehensive. A universe surely cannot cause itself to exist out of nothing or be causing it's own existence constantly. However while God can't pop out of nothing obviously, it can be that he constantly causes himself to exist.

Therefore they are two different discussions. "Everything requires a cause" would prove a supernatural cause to the universe.

[Mister Agenda]

You mean a chain of causes and effects.

No, because you can end that with an uncaused cause that is not an effect.

An infinite chan of causes and effects has no beginning and therefore is not an effect.

Hence the contradiction. Why is a chain of effects an effect? Because every part of it is an effect. The same applies to an infinite chain. Can you tell me one part that is not an effect?

That's kind of my point. I think you're making a fallacy of composition. Every link of a chain might be a ring of metal. That doesn't mean the chain itself is a ring of metal. Every link in a causal chain may require a preceding cause, but that doesnt' mean the causal chain itself requires a preceding cause. If the causal chain is infinite, there can't be a preceding cause for the whole chain by definition. This isn't a contradiction because the chain itself would not be an effect, it would just be.

An effect by definition requires a cause.

Fair enough.

[Joel]

But if time started at the moment of the big bang, then the big bang would be a cause; with time being an effect, also.

However while God can't pop out of nothing obviously, it can be that he constantly causes himself to exist.

If God can escape the rule to cause himself to exist; why can't anything else?

[Mister Agenda]

"Everything requires a cause" would prove a supernatural cause to the universe.

I think QM effectively proves that not everything requires a cause.

[Mystic]

Mister Agenda, in the case of chain of effects though, we surely know why we call in an effect. If every part of the chain is an effect, and every effect requires a cause, then every effect of the chain requires a cause, that implies the whole thing requires a cause. Yes it's true, by definition, it also doesn't require a cause, but I'm showing it contradicts itself. It asserts two contradictory properties.

In fact, I would say set theory proves this more then anything else.

We know there is infinitely more real numbers then integers. This is my mapping two infinities, and one being greater.

In the same way, every effect can be mapped to a cause, then the whole thing require the of same amount of cause, but that's not possible if one is an effect, one has to be a non-effect.

---

"Everything requires a cause" would prove a supernatural cause to the universe.

I think QM effectively proves that not everything requires a cause.

At least from the empirical proof, that maybe the case. It would not prove it ontologically though. For example, people can assume there can be causes people are not aware of or at the very least, say it is constantly caused by supernatural.

I don't think you can ontologically prove "from nothing, nothing follows" is wrong. You can state however, empirically science wise, we don't know that to be true.

[Mister Agenda]

I think we may be at an impasse, MK, I think set theory proves the opposite: the set of all chairs is not a chair. The set of all causes is not a cause. The set of all effects is not an effect. And the set of an infinite chain of causes and effects is neither a cause nor an effect, just a set.

[Mystic]

If God can escape the rule to cause himself to exist; why can't anything else?

Well it's by the nature of things. For example, no one will believe a lifeless atom can magically cause millions of universes to come to existence every second.

But this can be believable to the supernatural, because the supernatural is left to our imagination. Even if we can't imagine it, we can't imagine it as impossible.

The same is not true of an atom. We are relatively certain an atom can't be creating billions of universes every second.

In the same way, causing itself to exist, we can imagine the creator doing, but we can't imagine material things doing it.

Of course, we can't be sure an atom can't be magically causing a billion universes from simply our imaginative power....but believers might say, we been give some knowledge of the nature of existence...