Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype

[Jehanne]

If you look at Griffith's proof above, QM implies that the Universe is eternal, without beginning or end.  It just IS.

I agree that the universe is eternal. That doesn't mean that it's without a beginning. Without an end? Yes.

---

The integral (for time) runs from minus infinity to plus infinity.

[LadyForCamus]

Then why would a first cause be necessary in the first place? Why would the cosmos require something in addition to itself in order to exist?

Well, again, I don't think existence is "in addition" to the cosmos. The cosmos exists -- and we can call this a "thing" or a "state" or some other word, but it's not separate.

If it’s not separate then we can just call it, “the cosmos”, just as we can say, “this cat” instead of “the cat exists.” Right? I am failing to see a distinction with an actual difference.

I would even say the word “exists” is redundant in the sentence. We could simply point to the animal and and say, “this cat”.

We can if the cat is sitting there! 

But I still think it's meaningful to talk about the cat's existence. It didn't exist for a long time, and then it existed for a while, and then it didn't any more. These are facts about most of the cats in history (my late cat Nadja, for instance).

 
My condolences with regard to Nadja! We’ve been through a few cats as well. I currently have four, and I am not proud of that fact, lol.

I'm fine with "state of being." Or maybe "fact of being." 

I'd say that "the cosmos" and "existence" are only separate insofar as we talk about them that way. The cosmos exists; the cat existed before and doesn't now. The cosmos's existence isn't separate from the cosmos, but it is a fact about the cosmos.

If that’s true, then wouldn’t it be more parsimonious to say, “The cosmos is a fact”? 

So maybe it would be clearer, and in line with Aristotle still, to say that existence is a state of affairs, but that it is the state of affairs that must be the case for any contingent and changing object to have that state of affairs.

I would say that existence is the only possible state of affairs. I’ll go so far as to say that the phrase, “existence is necessary for things to exist” is a tautology. 

Since the First Cause isn't a tangible object but the "thing" (in the sense of situation, state, etc.)

I would agree with “state” or “state of affairs” as a description here. And, then I would argue that existence is the only possible state of affairs, therefore the cosmos is not contingent. It exists necessarily, and no first cause is required. 😛

then we can say this is the end of the causal chain -- the final answer to the series of questions "what must be the case in order for all other things to be the case?"

Yes, things must be able to exist in order for them to exist, and “no things existing at all” is not a logically possible state of affairs, therefore things exist because they have to. 

I'm not sure about this. I can imagine a previously existent cat to not exist any longer.

Sure. So can I; within the framework of other things still existing. But, “no cat” is not an actual thing which exists. In other words, I think that “everything which exists, minus one (the cat)”, and “zero things exist”, are distinct categories, and it may be an unintended composition fallacy to talk about them as though they’re comparable.

In order for  “zero things exist” to be a possible alternative state of affairs to, “at least one thing exists”, it would have to be something; some state or condition that would eliminate itself from the category of “non-existent.”

If what you say is true, I think it argues FOR a First Cause as necessary, non-contingent, not-possible-to-not-exist.

I would argue that if “The First Cause” is not temporal, and not even really a cause in the traditional sense that we understand the concept, then it’s a completely unnecessary, unsupported additional assumption. I can’t see any good reason why we can’t rename it “The Cosmos”.


P.S. Thank you for taking the time. I’m very much enjoying our dialogue. I enjoy subjects that make smoke come out of my ears. 😉