EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 130
Rainbow Connection

First-cause argument

Post new topic Reply to topic

Author  Message 
Scarecrow
Logos.
cookie lover
28
Posts: 2008
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Last Visit: 05 Dec 2010
Location: Too far from the Ocean.
 
First-cause argument
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Read this

Everything is caused by something other than itself
Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

Now read this

It suggests that this is self-refuting because "if everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false."



Current LD goal(s): Have an SD with that cute little crow.
back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

But that is an issue of formal logics, not of actual metaphysics. You can say what you're trying to say by formulating it differently:

God exists.
All true things follow from "God exists."

Or:

Everything is caused by something.
God is caused by God.
Everything not-God is caused by something other than itself.


back to top
Scarecrow
Logos.
cookie lover
28
Posts: 2008
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Last Visit: 05 Dec 2010
Location: Too far from the Ocean.
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

God must have a cause other than himself, so god is not caused by god so... this is false:
everything not god is cause by something other than itself



Current LD goal(s): Have an SD with that cute little crow.
back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

No. I mean I'm starting my model from scratch. See, these are propositions:
    Everything is caused by something other than itself
    There must be a first cause.
They can even be written in that somewhat arcane notation of Logic:
(The first line says "everything must be an implication of another thing" while the second says "there must be one thing that is not an implication of anything.")

In formal Logic, these two propositions together make a contradiction. However, that doesn't mean God is a contradiction. It only means the model you've created is. Now assume the propositions:
    God exists.
    If "God exists" then everything which is true follows from "God exists"
Given these propositions, God may have no cause (or be a cause of itself of you want to be strict), while all other things, directly or indirectly, follow from God's existence. So everything has a cause other than itself, everything except God, and there's no contradiction in this model.

Like I said, your propositions are a problem of Formal Logic, not Metaphysics. No gods were harmed in the making of this topic.


back to top
Scarecrow
Logos.
cookie lover
28
Posts: 2008
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Last Visit: 05 Dec 2010
Location: Too far from the Ocean.
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

I see your point, i thought you were trying to say my argument was wrong..

And it's only an argument, a problem of formal logic wink5



Current LD goal(s): Have an SD with that cute little crow.
back to top
Queen SD
Still Dreaming
cookie lover
27
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Last Visit: 22 Sep 2015
LD count: Never enough
Location: Greece - making ebil plans
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

What if there wasnt a first cause? What if the universe is stuck in a time loop or something like that? A chain of events that never started and will never end? Then again that may be false because the universe will eventualy come to an end...

back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sat 08 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Αλεξάνδρα wrote:
What if there wasnt a first cause? What if the universe is stuck in a time loop or something like that? A chain of events that never started and will never end? Then again that may be false because the universe will eventualy come to an end...

Well, you tell us: what if? Perhaps the universe repeats itself, in an endless loop of exactly equal iterations. Perhaps this is the 46 451 684 684 768 769 486 846 165 116th time a girl just like you, called Αλεξάνδρα just like you are, write this very same post while wondering about the very same problems. Or perhaps it's different each time. How different? "Magic carpets flying all over" different, "completely different forms of life" different or "Αλεξάνδρα didn't groom her hair on May 5th 2005" different? Really, it's an open ended question. If there was no first cause, what came before the last thing we can possibly track in the chain of causes?


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
Re: First-cause argument
PostPosted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

ouvres tes yeux wrote:

Everything is caused by something other than itself
Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.


It's the problem of infinite regress.

"The universe needs a cause, maybe it's God?"

Well then what caused God?

"God does not need a cause. He just is"

Well, maybe the universe just is too.

In fact, one day we might be able to actually explain the 'cause' of the universe (as in, from the very beginning, right from t=0. That's what science is there for.). But to explain God? Forget about it; he's either not there or beyond explanation (I'm betting on the former). So, why remove the prospect of explaining something that we have a chance of one day actually explaining by placing something unexplainable and essentially unnecessary in place of our potential, real, and tangible explanation?

This is the somewhat wordy response I give to people who try to tell me that everything needs a cause, and that somewhere at the beginning of all these causes is a god.


back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

You're framing the question in a contemporary metaphysical view, Josh.

Plato's version of the argument is the following:
    Every contingent and finite being has a cause which is external to itself.
    The chain of causes can't be infinite.
    Therefore, there is a cause which is not contingent and finite.
Although you can dive into the discussion of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite (it is contingent, but if it's infinite we can call it our cause and live without a god), the problem here escapes infinite regress and becomes a more general "cosmological problem of god."

Only assuming a contemporary metaphysical framework is the "cosmological problem of god" reduced to a "cosmological problem of infinite regress." wink5


back to top
Sakoda
That's my name.
cookie lover
12
Scribes
Posts: 1656
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Last Visit: 27 Jun 2018
LD count: '09 about 4
Location: Terhe is an icaseinrng duobt of the rtiealy of tihs rlieaty
 
PostPosted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

cool topic :D fine we have something here ...... well, i belive in god as to how he can be without beginning , this is a matter only at parts understandable ...
if i didnt believe in good i think i would believe that the universe and spca itself have a NEED for existance and order ..... ok, this is stopping making sense . end of post


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Bruno wrote:
You're framing the question in a contemporary metaphysical view, Josh.

Plato's version of the argument is the following:
    Every contingent and finite being has a cause which is external to itself.
    The chain of causes can't be infinite.
    Therefore, there is a cause which is not contingent and finite.
Although you can dive into the discussion of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite (it is contingent, but if it's infinite we can call it our cause and live without a god), the problem here escapes infinite regress and becomes a more general "cosmological problem of god."

Only assuming a contemporary metaphysical framework is the "cosmological problem of god" reduced to a "cosmological problem of infinite regress." wink5


But can we even avoid getting stuck in a purely 'contemporary metaphysical framework' when talking about this sort of thing? Plato's argument for example:

Every contingent and finite being has a cause which is external to itself.
The chain of causes can't be infinite.
Therefore, there is a cause which is not contingent and finite.

The part about the impossibility of an infinite chain of causes, Plato gathered from his own epistemology and his own metaphysics, which were thought up by a being living in his own small corner of the universe; he simply couldn't conceive of an infinite chain of causes. So, through his own contemporary metaphysics, he saw this problem (this is how I understand it given my somewhat limited knowledge of the philosophy of Plato).

But like you said, this is purely metaphysics, it may or may not have anything to do with reality kiekeboe


back to top
Scarecrow
Logos.
cookie lover
28
Posts: 2008
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Last Visit: 05 Dec 2010
Location: Too far from the Ocean.
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Great guys :D keep it going
Glad you like the topic wink5
I don't particularly believe in God for reasons personal



Current LD goal(s): Have an SD with that cute little crow.
back to top
Troober
The Insomniac
Somniologist
36
Posts: 105
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Last Visit: 25 Aug 2012
Location: Canada
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

But is everything caused by something other than itself?

Taking a basic example of happiness. It's an emotion we experience in response to a catalyst triggering the brain to release the correct chemicals, making us feel elated. The exact chemistry of why it makes us feel happy I don't know, but that's not important here.

Happiness itself (the feeling) isn't tangible. It can't be measured. Chemicals (like dopamine levels) can be viewed, body language and/or facial expression can be interpreted, but there's no way to measure the intangible emotion.

With that in mind, prior to the first human/animal experiencing happiness, did the emotion exist? The way of experiencing it didn't, but did the emotion? Since it isn't tangible it wouldn't need to be created at any point, all it would need is a being capable of experiencing it. When that first being experienced happiness they didn't create it, happiness wasn't invented at that point, it was merely experienced for the first time.

I would think that's what a "god" would be like. There is no measure, there is no point of creation, it's just always been around but only experienced for the first time when a tangible object capable of experiencing that god was created (the universe).

Anything physical requires a cause, and for anything physical to experience the intangible requires a cause (like dopamine), but I don't believe the tangible is bound by the same requirements.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Troober wrote:

Taking a basic example of happiness. It's an emotion we experience in response to a catalyst triggering the brain to release the correct chemicals, making us feel elated. The exact chemistry of why it makes us feel happy I don't know, but that's not important here.

Happiness itself (the feeling) isn't tangible. It can't be measured. Chemicals (like dopamine levels) can be viewed, body language and/or facial expression can be interpreted, but there's no way to measure the intangible emotion.


But that's exactly what you're doing when you gauge facial expressions and measure brain chemistry, you are measuring happiness, albeit indirectly.

You can do the same thing with the idea of a god if you want to as well. Say we're looking for the Babylonian god Marduk; it is said that he created the world by placing a mat on the ocean and piling earth on top of it. So if Marduk exists, we should be able to find evidence of this ocean/mat/earth creation story. Since we don't see this, we might conclude that Marduk doesn't exist, even if the evidence we were looking for might have been indirect.


back to top
Troober
The Insomniac
Somniologist
36
Posts: 105
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Last Visit: 25 Aug 2012
Location: Canada
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007  Reply with quote

Josh Redstone wrote:
But that's exactly what you're doing when you gauge facial expressions and measure brain chemistry, you are measuring happiness, albeit indirectly.
That's just our nonscientific estimation based off of observation though. We're trying to interpret their happiness level based off of the tangible clues available to us. We can never measure the happiness itself, just how something physical attempts to display it. Someone could smile one at someone one second, then attack them the next. We can only guess what they're actually feeling.

Josh Redstone wrote:
You can do the same thing with the idea of a god if you want to as well. Say we're looking for the Babylonian god Marduk; it is said that he created the world by placing a mat on the ocean and piling earth on top of it. So if Marduk exists, we should be able to find evidence of this ocean/mat/earth creation story. Since we don't see this, we might conclude that Marduk doesn't exist, even if the evidence we were looking for might have been indirect.
Ah, but then we're basing the definition of a "god" off of human stories smile Unfortunately everyone is capable of coming up with some kind of intriguing story surrounding a god, so religion boils down to what someone chooses to believe, or (usually) what they were brought up under, rather than what actually takes place. It's faith versus proof. But that doesn't mean there isn't some sort of god.

I think one of the problems with debating the existence of a "god" is that it's viewed more in terms of the existence of the Judeo-Christian type of God (or another religion's opinion) than it is about an undefined higher power. Afterall, who's to say that, if there is a god figure, it would even care to interact with us? Religion usually centers around the hope that there is a greater being (or beings), and that it chooses to concern itself with matters which have an importance to us.

What if that's not the case though?

Perhaps it created the universe just to watch what happens. Perhaps it doesn't even know it created the universe. It could be good, evil, both, or neither. Maybe it doesn't even have a consciousness, and the universe was created from a flicker of an awareness beginning to take form, making us nothing more than a dream which will end when that consciousness takes hold, and all our actions and discoveries will be retained to make up it's newly formed intelligence.

What I'm getting at is if we limit our definition of "God" to what religions in the past have suggested it could be we're making it a question of faith rather than a question of possibility.

Personally I do believe in the existence of a "God", but I don't believe the religions have it right. If we ever did know the truth it's been long since lost or forgotten.


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB
LD4all ~ spreading the art and knowledge of lucid dreaming online since 1996 ~