A universe exists therefore G-d exists

[Peregrino]

i woke up this morning…

ok im just being funny, but subjectively true, i really dont know what woke me up this morning

That’s cool-being an uncaused yourself you must be a god. What is divinity like and should we adopt polytheism? Will you anwer my prayers while you are at it?

 

[JDaniel]

How convenient of you to assume your conclusion…

Since you have denied an a priori explanation for your “first cause” “God” , please walk me through your empirical proof for an uncaused cause…getting us back to God in your causal chain would be nice while you are at it.

You are not responding charitably. You are argumentative, angry and overall very low-toned. If you want serious, responsible debate, you are going about it all wrong. Your language and juxtaposition of words betrays your sacreligiousness. I thnk the moderator should look into all of your posts. As for me, when I find the Ignore button I will use it.

Goodbye,
JD

 

[ateista]

The major problem with the first cause argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition and it relies on a whole lot of other unproven assumptions.

Essentially it says: since we observe causality in the universe, we assume that the causality is universal, and the universe is one huge, uninterrupted causal chain, which terminates eventually and the terminal point is called God.

Problem number one: from the observation of local causalites it does not follow that causality is universal. Plausible assumption, but nothing more.

Problem number two: the assumption that the universe is one causal chain implies that we are not free agents, that there is no freedom of will. If everything is “caused”, then our actions are also caused, and as such they cannot be called “free”. If we have free will (unproven) then the universe is not one, uninterrupted causal chain.

Problem number three: the assumption that there are no infinite causal chains needs to be substantiated. The popular induction (as opposed to a mathematical induction) is unconvincing. Just because we have never seen a black swan, it does not follow that black swans do not exist.

Problem number four: causality is simply not defined (and cannot be defined) for collections. It can be defined for individual events only. The universe is not one event, it is a collection of events, which cannot be ordered into a sequence of consecutive events. The conceptual “cause” for the universe is therefore undefined and nonsensical.

Based upon these obsevations the “first cause” argument is fallacious, it does not need to be addressed any further. These observations cannot be construed as a refutation of “God’s existence”, only that the “first cause” argument is incorrect.

 

[Fran65]

Problem number one: from the observation of local causalites it does not follow that causality is universal. Plausible assumption, but nothing more…

I can see that. However, and this relates to problem number three too, it hasn’t been demonstrated that causality is not universal - although I understand that trying to prove a negative is not scientific!

Plausible assumptions are helpful and do work though. In the absence of evidence to the contrary…

Problem number two: the assumption that the universe is one causal chain implies that we are not free agents, that there is no freedom of will. If everything is “caused”, then our actions are also caused, and as such they cannot be called “free”. If we have free will (unproven) then the universe is not one, uninterrupted causal chain…

This is such an interesting one. My (very personal understanding as a psychologist) is that ‘free will’ means that God does not control us. In other words, free will *does not *mean that our choices occur outside the chain of causality.Our behaviour and thoughts are ‘caused’ by our choices. Our choices are ‘caused’ by the end of a process of decision making, that decision making is ‘caused’ (partially? - because we can consider so many alternatives) - our knowledge, previous experiences and the situation in which we find ourselves, and other factors.

For example, it may be possible to raise a child to engage unhesitatingly in violence. That child’s choices have been determined by their experiences, but in theory at least they could choose not to - but only if they know that there is an alternative. Without education the child is limited in their choices - they have the potential - but not the ability.

I sometimes think about as similar to a programmer having written a program that means that it (the program) can make a number of choices, none of which are are actually determined by the programmer, but which the program can choose depending upon a number of factors. Like the emergent behaviour of some units at MIT (the coke can gathering for example?)

I think what I am arguing - although I am not a philosopher! - is that determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Problem number four:…The universe is not one event, it is a collection of events, which cannot be ordered into a sequence of consecutive events. …

Cannot? or has not? I’m not clear that one can’t order multiple events into a logical sequence - like parallel processing or how the brain functions.

Based upon these obsevations the “first cause” argument is fallacious, it does not need to be addressed any further. These observations cannot be construed as a refutation of “God’s existence”, only that the “first cause” argument is incorrect.

I don’t agree that it doesn’t need addressing or that it has been disproved.

But I do agree that even if it isn’t accepted that doesn’t mean that God does not exist!

 

[JDaniel]

Based upon these obsevations the “first cause” argument is fallacious, it does not need to be addressed any further. These observations cannot be construed as a refutation of “God’s existence”, only that the “first cause” argument is incorrect.

Ahh, ateista, your agurment(s) commit the unpardonable error of beginning your little science with a beginning premise that is quite erroneous.

But, you might earn a pardon if you will pay attention and learn what is meant by causality, and, more particularly, efficient causality.

What you have described presents an aberrated understanding of necessary definitions and realities before one can argue intelligently.

There are more than several, lurking around these forums, that would like a lively discussion of the causes, and, we might as well start with the Thomistic proof of God from Causality.

However, we may not do it on this thread. You will know, in a few days, what the new thread will be. Be patient. Thank you.

JD

 

[Peregrino]

The major problem with the first cause argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition and it relies on a whole lot of other unproven assumptions.

Essentially it says: since we observe causality in the universe, we assume that the causality is universal, and the universe is one huge, uninterrupted causal chain, which terminates eventually and the terminal point is called God.

Problem number one: from the observation of local causalites it does not follow that causality is universal. Plausible assumption, but nothing more.

Problem number two: the assumption that the universe is one causal chain implies that we are not free agents, that there is no freedom of will. If everything is “caused”, then our actions are also caused, and as such they cannot be called “free”. If we have free will (unproven) then the universe is not one, uninterrupted causal chain.

Problem number three: the assumption that there are no infinite causal chains needs to be substantiated. The popular induction (as opposed to a mathematical induction) is unconvincing. Just because we have never seen a black swan, it does not follow that black swans do not exist.

Problem number four: causality is simply not defined (and cannot be defined) for collections. It can be defined for individual events only. The universe is not one event, it is a collection of events, which cannot be ordered into a sequence of consecutive events. The conceptual “cause” for the universe is therefore undefined and nonsensical.

Based upon these obsevations the “first cause” argument is fallacious, it does not need to be addressed any further. These observations cannot be construed as a refutation of “God’s existence”, only that the “first cause” argument is incorrect.

Bingo! Nice fleshing out of the problems of the argument as a whole! Neither “God” nor the “Big Bang” explanations for the universe can rely on the “first cause” argument. The argument gets us no where and even introduces the problem of freewill/determinism.

 

[Peregrino]

You are not responding charitably. You are argumentative, angry and overall very low-toned. If you want serious, responsible debate, you are going about it all wrong. Your language and juxtaposition of words betrays your sacreligiousness. I thnk the moderator should look into all of your posts. As for me, when I find the Ignore button I will use it.

Goodbye,
JD

Not at all. In fact, I would apply your observations to your own posts as a whole on this thread.

Unfortunately, it is somewhat difficult to avoid appearing “sacreligious” as you say when discussing these issues. Merely questioning the idea of “God” is somewhat sacriligious. That I can do so and remain a catholic is a blessing.

God bless.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please remember to post with civility, everyone. Being snide/sarcastic isn’t an argument nor does it make your case for you. I will close threads that cannot maintain a civil tone. Thank you all.

 

[Leela]

It’ll probably get me into a whole world of hurt around here, but some theoreticians have a few objections to the whole idea of causality, and they aren’t idiots either. Just tossing that one out there - and good luck to those who care to tackle it!

Hi Nepenthe,

I not much of a philosophologist, but I believe it was Hume who first brought up serious criticism of causality.

He simply pointed out that there is no empirical basis for causality. You never see it, touch it, hear it or feel it. You never experience it in any way. For example, you may see billiard ball A strike billiard ball B, and see that billiard ball B moves after being struck, but you didn’t see “cause.”

To tie in with Pirsig’s ideas that I’ve been talking about in the STEM, STEMG, Other? thread, note that to say that “A causes B” or to say that “B values precondition A” is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying “A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,” you can say “Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.” Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may sound little awkward, but that’s a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged.

You can always substitute “B values precondition A” for “A causes B” without changing any facts of science at all. The term “cause” can be struck out completely from a scientific
description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness. The only difference between causation and value is that the word “cause” implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of “value” is one of preference. In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty and that “cause” is the more appropriate word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles “prefer” to do what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences. Therefore when you strike “cause” from the language and substitute “value” you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one (since values are directly experienced); you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation.

Though it makes no scientific difference to make that mental substitution, I prefer think of the universe as based in values than substance. Doing so results in a more empirically based description that is also more accurate in light of quantum mechanics.

Best,
Leela

 

[ateista]

I can see that. However, and this relates to problem number three too, it hasn’t been demonstrated that causality is not universal - although I understand that trying to prove a negative is not scientific!

Plausible assumptions are helpful and do work though. In the absence of evidence to the contrary…

Certainly. But if one attempts to create a proof for something, it is not enough to start with a plausible assumption. The assumptions must be ironclad, otherwise the whole structure hangs in the air, unsupported.

This is such an interesting one. My (very personal understanding as a psychologist) is that ‘free will’ means that God does not control us. In other words, free will *does not *mean that our choices occur outside the chain of causality.Our behaviour and thoughts are ‘caused’ by our choices. Our choices are ‘caused’ by the end of a process of decision making, that decision making is ‘caused’ (partially? - because we can consider so many alternatives) - our knowledge, previous experiences and the situation in which we find ourselves, and other factors.

For example, it may be possible to raise a child to engage unhesitatingly in violence. That child’s choices have been determined by their experiences, but in theory at least they could choose not to - but only if they know that there is an alternative. Without education the child is limited in their choices - they have the potential - but not the ability.

I sometimes think about as similar to a programmer having written a program that means that it (the program) can make a number of choices, none of which are are actually determined by the programmer, but which the program can choose depending upon a number of factors. Like the emergent behaviour of some units at MIT (the coke can gathering for example?)

I think what I am arguing - although I am not a philosopher! - is that determinism is not incompatible with free will.

I don’t see how they can be compatible. I differentiate between an “influenced” choice and a “caused” action. Obviously our actions are influenced by our experiences and desires, but they are not determined or caused by them.

Your example is good. If the program has multiple choices, which are not predetermined by the programmer, or any other sources, then we can speak of a free choice. Otherwise we cannot. How could we?

Cannot? or has not? I’m not clear that one can’t order multiple events into a logical sequence - like parallel processing or how the brain functions.

Cannot. The fact is that there are many causative chains running parallel to each other. It is simply nonsensical to attribute a “common” cause for all of them. As an example: in a library there are many books. All of them are caused by their respective authors. But the question: “who caused the collection of the books” cannot be answered, because it is an invalid question.

I don’t agree that it doesn’t need addressing or that it has been disproved.

What else is there? There is one more problem, which I did not mention before: the concept of causation is only defined within the universe, just like space, time, relationships, etc. These concepts simply cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, since they are relative to something else. To posit an “external” something already presupposes an external entity (God) and that is supposed to be the result, not a pre-existing condition.

 

[ateista]

Ahh, ateista, your agurment(s) commit the unpardonable error of beginning your little science with a beginning premise that is quite erroneous.

But, you might earn a pardon if you will pay attention and learn what is meant by causality, and, more particularly, efficient causality.

What you have described presents an aberrated understanding of necessary definitions and realities before one can argue intelligently.

There are more than several, lurking around these forums, that would like a lively discussion of the causes, and, we might as well start with the Thomistic proof of God from Causality.

However, we may not do it on this thread. You will know, in a few days, what the new thread will be. Be patient. Thank you.

JD

The first cause argument is supposed to be the topic of this thread, so you are most welcome to point out those erroneous premises I have allegedly made.

 

[Fran65]

I don’t see how they can be compatible. I differentiate between an “influenced” choice and a “caused” action. Obviously our actions are influenced by our experiences and desires, but they are not determined or caused by them.

Compatibilism between determination and free will has been argued for by Thomas Hobbes. He suggests “that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to.” (from wikipedia). In other words, our thoughts and actions are determined when they occur without our will - when we do not have a choice.

On the other hand:

To be responsible for one’s choices is to be the first cause of those choices, where first cause means that there is no antecedent cause of that cause. The argument, then, is that if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions. If determinism is true, then all of man’s choices are caused by events and facts outside his control. So, if everything man does is caused by events and facts outside his control, then he cannot be the ultimate cause of his actions. Therefore, he cannot have free will

As an alternative, maybe subjective choices and decisions, such as belief in God, not being part of the material world are not determined? That does not mean that *physical events *are not always determined, unless one is a materialist and believes that the mind is the brain.

This is really making me think!

Cannot. The fact is that there are many causative chains running parallel to each other. It is simply nonsensical to attribute a “common” cause for all of them. As an example: in a library there are many books. All of them are caused by their respective authors. But the question: “who caused the collection of the books” cannot be answered, because it is an invalid question.

But we are talking about the origin of the universe. The origin has been postulated as a single event - the big bang. We are only then talking about a single cause for a single event. It is possible that God created the universe in the sense of its origin, its physical laws and its attributes. The universe then runs according to those (God given) laws and God may intervene when He decides its appropriate or not. He does not even have to fashion us by hand because he knows how evolution works, knows that we will be created as humans and gives us each a soul as we are conceived

…the concept of causation is only defined within the universe, just like space, time, relationships, etc. These concepts simply cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, since they are relative to something else. To posit an “external” something already presupposes an external entity (God) and that is supposed to be the result, not a pre-existing condition.

The universe is a physical system, it is complex, but it is still a physical system. Space, time, causality as far as we know applies throughout the universe and to all physical systems. It does not matter how big - its a system, so causality applies. The external something - the first cause, could, in theory at least be something other than God (although it would not be God as we (Catholics) understand it - omnipotent, omniscient, all good, personal). That is where belief comes in I guess.

So we can argue for a first cause without presupposing God’s existence is what I think I’m getting at!

 

[Fran65]

I have realised that there a few problems with my last post -if I could have edited I would have!

Of course, the first cause is for God, not for any other first cause -doh!

Second, I don’t think that compatibilism is what I thought it was; having thought more about it. It is just saying that everything in the universe isn’t determined - which of course is what you (ateista) were saying originally! double doh!

So, I stick with the single event origin of the universe - this was God and that those things that are freely willed are not part of the physical universe therefore the fact that they are not determined is not a problem for causality in the first cause argument.

Got there - I hope!

 

[ateista]

Compatibilism between determination and free will has been argued for by Thomas Hobbes. He suggests “that a person acts freely only when the person willed the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to.” (from wikipedia). In other words, our thoughts and actions are determined when they occur without our will - when we do not have a choice.

On the other hand:

As an alternative, maybe subjective choices and decisions, such as belief in God, not being part of the material world are not determined? That does not mean that *physical events *are not always determined, unless one is a materialist and believes that the mind is the brain.

This is really making me think!

First, a correction. The materialst view is not that the mind = brain. The mind is the function of the brain, and that is a huge difference. Just like its IT parallel, the brain is the hardware, and the mind is the software. On the same hardware, all sorts of different programs can run, sometimes concurrently, and sometimes these programs can interfere with each other, maybe even causing a “breakdown”, if one is confronted with an unsolvable dilemma. In these cases one may even withdraw from reality and goes into a catatonic stage.

The atheist / materialist view is that the man is a primary causative agent, whose actions may be influenced, but not deternimed by external or internal preconditions. That is, IF we have free will, which cannot be proven or disproven.

Interestingly enough, the theist view also considers humans as responsible for their actions, so this view also argues for true, libertarian free will - which admits that humans start new causative chains. Therefore the Universe is not a single causative chain - and thus it is not sensible to argue for the existence of “first” cause - be it either temporal or causative “first”.

But we are talking about the origin of the universe. The origin has been postulated as a single event - the big bang. We are only then talking about a single cause for a single event.

Not exactly. The Big Bang is not postulated as the “beginning” of the Universe. It is postulated as the beginning of the current form of the Universe. Our physics breaks down at the point of the singularity. We simply don’t know what kinds of laws govern a singularity (black holes included).

Second, I don’t think that compatibilism is what I thought it was; having thought more about it. It is just saying that everything in the universe isn’t determined - which of course is what you (ateista) were saying originally! double doh!

We can chalk this up as an agreement.

So, I stick with the single event origin of the universe - this was God and that those things that are freely willed are not part of the physical universe therefore the fact that they are not determined is not a problem for causality in the first cause argument.

Why would freely chosen actions be not part of the physical universe? Of course, ideas, concepts are not ontological entities, but thoughts, actions are expressed in physical activities of the muscles, brain cells, etc…

 

[Sarpedon]

The major problem with the first cause argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition and it relies on a whole lot of other unproven assumptions.

I don’t think the argument is particularly strong, but I think it is stronger than you make it out to be.

Problem number one: from the observation of local causalites it does not follow that causality is universal. Plausible assumption, but nothing more.

Agreed. Atheists make many assumptions as well, such as the accuracy of the mind.

Problem number two: the assumption that the universe is one causal chain implies that we are not free agents, that there is no freedom of will. If everything is “caused”, then our actions are also caused, and as such they cannot be called “free”. If we have free will (unproven) then the universe is not one, uninterrupted causal chain.

No, because causation does not necessarily dictate all the attributes of the caused thing. For example, a specific chemical reaction will cause a specific compound, but the chemical reaction will not necessarily determine the path the caused molecule will take in a solution. Another example is the way enviroment affects how genes are expressed.

The world is not a single causual chain, but rather a “bush” that all goes back to a single point.

Problem number three: the assumption that there are no infinite causal chains needs to be substantiated. The popular induction (as opposed to a mathematical induction) is unconvincing. Just because we have never seen a black swan, it does not follow that black swans do not exist.

The assumption that empirical material can be self-existent needs to be substantiated as well, yet atheists have no problem accepting it.

Problem number four: causality is simply not defined (and cannot be defined) for collections. It can be defined for individual events only. The universe is not one event, it is a collection of events, which cannot be ordered into a sequence of consecutive events. The conceptual “cause” for the universe is therefore undefined and nonsensical.

Events are collections of things (except maybe gluons and stuff like that). For example, the movement of a limb is a result of cellular contraction, then chemical processes, then attributes of matter, then physical realities, etc. You can’t separate an individual event from the “causes” below it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The major problem with the first cause argument is that it commits the fallacy of composition and it relies on a whole lot of other unproven assumptions.

Essentially it says: since we observe causality in the universe, we assume that the causality is universal, and the universe is one huge, uninterrupted causal chain, which terminates eventually and the terminal point is called God.

first let me say that if causality does not exist than it would be a huge hoax.

as a metaphysical theory it is tested 1x10 (infinite) -1, every second, yes a shattered teacup may reform instantaneously, yet it is so improbable that it has never been witnessed in the existent universe, really if you think about it causality is tested with every movement of a particle of any size, every breath taken, every chemical interaction, any movement of any kind, only rational supposition allows for causality to run backward, in practice it does not happen.

as to the idea of causality terminating with G-d, i am coming to the understanding that causality begins with the big bang, physics admits to a timeless lawless moment, as a matter of mathematical deduction based on observable data of the existent universe, the only existent infinity that science is aware of was that moment in which no time or physical law existed.

as an effect science is admitting to the existence of an infinite cause. as bacon said only one infinity may exist because by definition it would exclude all other infinities,

science admits to this infinity, therefore i must beg that causality is a local phenomenon, prior to this there was an infinite first cause to the observable universe.

Problem number one: from the observation of local causalites it does not follow that causality is universal. Plausible assumption, but nothing more.

indeed, as answered above.

Problem number two: the assumption that the universe is one causal chain implies that we are not free agents, that there is no freedom of will. If everything is “caused”, then our actions are also caused, and as such they cannot be called “free”. If we have free will (unproven) then the universe is not one, uninterrupted causal chain.

firstly the problem of free will is separate from the argument of first cause.

however, we believe free will is a gift from G-d, the mathematical determinism implied by a G-dless universe is in effect proof of a G-d. otherwise we are dealing with an almost mathematically impossible universe, the probability of that is so infinitesimal that only a philosopher could assign the word ‘possible’ to it.

Problem number three: the assumption that there are no infinite causal chains needs to be substantiated. The popular induction (as opposed to a mathematical induction) is unconvincing. Just because we have never seen a black swan, it does not follow that black swans do not exist.

see first argument above, though you are right to a degree, just because we cant see G-d, doesn’t mean G-d doesn’t exist :

Problem number four: causality is simply not defined (and cannot be defined) for collections. It can be defined for individual events only. The universe is not one event, it is a collection of events, which cannot be ordered into a sequence of consecutive events. The conceptual “cause” for the universe is therefore undefined and nonsensical.

each causal event may be observed, were you to be present for each event you would observe each causation, in order, as we already do in our own sphere of senses, once again, it is possible for causality to be severed, yet in all of human history, accepted science, and practical knowledge, this has never occurred. which is strange considering that local causality is tested almost an infinite number of times, every second, as any particle moves, causing the movement of yet another, all across the observable universe.

Based upon these obsevations the “first cause” argument is fallacious, it does not need to be addressed any further. These observations cannot be construed as a refutation of “God’s existence”, only that the “first cause” argument is incorrect.

lets not be so hasty, i think this may yet be more grist for that mill

p.s. How are the grandkids?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Interestingly enough, the theist view also considers humans as responsible for their actions, so this view also argues for true, libertarian free will - which admits that humans start new causative chains. Therefore the Universe is not a single causative chain - and thus it is not sensible to argue for the existence of “first” cause - be it either temporal or causative “first”.

im not sure that people start new causative chains, rather it might be that we simply take responsibility or claim ownership, as a different chain of local causality intersects with chains of causality with which we are already intimately involved?

Not exactly. The Big Bang is not postulated as the “beginning” of the Universe. It is postulated as the beginning of the current form of the Universe. Our physics breaks down at the point of the singularity. We simply don’t know what kinds of laws govern a singularity (black holes included).

the math doesn’t break down, it just doesn’t provide answers that make sense in relation to our current state of knowledge, what it shows is that there was a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word)
in which there was no time or physical laws. when there is no time, we call that the infinite, the jump from a singularity to a universe of time and physics encompasses a moment of ‘no-time’
with out time, nothing happens, it would have been the 'infinite moment, that is a huge jump, because it means there was no proof of a singularity, the math only makes sense in relation to the observable universe if we assume a singularity, that ‘infinite moment’ , that singularity, is G-d. the math only shows a sudden expansion, a singularity is an assumption, after all ‘something’ had to explode.

so it could just as likely be G-d

now we may argue about whose G-d,but that is for another thread.

 

[ateista]

Agreed. Atheists make many assumptions as well, such as the accuracy of the mind.

Yes, indeed. We all must start “somewhere”, with some basic, unsupported assumptions. The point is that the atheist assumptions are not used as a “proof” for God’s nonexistence.

Of course I don’t argue against causality, just pointed out that is may not be universal. And since it is a starting point for the alleged proof, we should all acknowledge this fact.

No, because causation does not necessarily dictate all the attributes of the caused thing. For example, a specific chemical reaction will cause a specific compound, but the chemical reaction will not necessarily determine the path the caused molecule will take in a solution. Another example is the way enviroment affects how genes are expressed.

Excellent observation. Now I wonder if you argue for true randomness here? Or just that the complexity of the results prevents us (non-omniscient beings) from being able to assess the precise causative chain? Obviously these are different.

The world is not a single causual chain, but rather a “bush” that all goes back to a single point.

Does it? How can you substantiate that?

The assumption that empirical material can be self-existent needs to be substantiated as well, yet atheists have no problem accepting it.

Correct. But we do not attempt to use it as a “proof”. Don’t forget, atheists do not assert anything in particular on the metaphysical level, they just say that they do not believe in the existence of a God or gods.

Events are collections of things (except maybe gluons and stuff like that). For example, the movement of a limb is a result of cellular contraction, then chemical processes, then attributes of matter, then physical realities, etc. You can’t separate an individual event from the “causes” below it.

Right on the money, again. As before, I am not arguing that complex events cannot be reduced to a single causative agent, rather that such reduction does not automatically follow. And that is the fallacy of composition.

 

[ateista]

p.s. How are the grandkids?

I hope I answered your objections in the post directly above. As to this question, he is great !!! (Only one grandson.) We play a lot and having a wonderful time.

 

[Fran65]

First, a correction. The materialst view is not that the mind = brain. The mind is the function of the brain, and that is a huge difference.

No, that is a cognitive view. Neuroscientists do not all believe that this is how the brain works, cognitive scientists do.
We disagree here - but that’s okay.

Interestingly enough, the theist view also considers humans as responsible for their actions, so this view also argues for true, libertarian free will - which admits that humans start new causative chains.

This depends on agreeing a definition of free will. Just as there exists hard and soft determinism, so there exists the idea that ‘free will’, as I described above, does not start completely new causative chains. Free will in a theological sense means that God does not determine our actions and choices, (even though He could being omnipotent). Those choices however are not completely undetermined by other non God factors/causes.

Not exactly. The Big Bang is not postulated as the “beginning” of the Universe. It is postulated as the beginning of the current form of the Universe. Our physics breaks down at the point of the singularity. We simply don’t know what kinds of laws govern a singularity (black holes included).

Theoretically, though, if God is omnipotent, then He could start multiple causative chains at the same time, even if each of these chains once started then exist as separate causative chains.

In addition, even if there have been/are other universes then we still need a cause for each of those, otherwise we end up in infinite regression. I don’t think that the concept of multiverses is excluded by the argument of God as the first cause.

Why would freely chosen actions be not part of the physical universe? Of course, ideas, concepts are not ontological entities, but thoughts, actions are expressed in physical activities of the muscles, brain cells, etc…

I’m not sure, but doesn’t this pose a problem for the argument that if free will exists then there are events without cause which means that we don’t need a first cause?

If chosen actions are expressed in physical activities as suggested then doesn’t that made them caused? Couldn’t we suggest that the actions are ‘caused’ in the sense of God created us and our soul, the system then runs without His interference - this being free will - as I suggested above.

A bit like programs running and developing new properties, but those new properties would not have emerged unless the programmer had written the program as it was; and as I said before the programmer not determining the outcomes.