Argument from First Cause

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Please feel free to confirm your position at your convenience.

Is there any reason why I should do so…?

Well, it’s a forum. A place for the exchange of viewpoints and the discussion of one’s position. If I don’t know your position, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[MPat]

Well, it’s a forum. A place for the exchange of viewpoints and the discussion of one’s position. If I don’t know your position, there is nothing to discuss.

Wait, you do not know my position?

So, why did you proclaim it with so much confidence?

Just look:

It would have saved you a lot of typing if you’d just said consciousness and rationality were given to us by God. I’m not sure why you spent so much time not saying that.

You were given something to discuss. You chose to ignore all that.

You substituted something else. And yet, you did not discuss that position you ascribed to me either.

Well, if you do not want to discuss either of those things, that’s fine by me.

As you can see, you are not a monopolist, I can discuss things with someone else.

Oh, and, by the way…

If you do not know something (for example, my position), and you want to find it out, you might wish to ask.

As you know, English word “ask” has two meanings: as in “to ask a question” and as in “to ask for a favour”.

Both would have been fitting. But you did not ask a question (for example, there was no question mark), nor did you ask for a favour (for example, there was no “please”).

Nor did you try to give me something in exchange (for example, you ignored everything I said).

So, as you can see, for now you can’t give me a good reason. Not even “Because I asked nicely.”. For, well, you didn’t.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, it’s a forum. A place for the exchange of viewpoints and the discussion of one’s position. If I don’t know your position, there is nothing to discuss.

Wait, you do not know my position?

Well, I thought I did. I stated it to confirm it but then you said this:

You explicitly substituted something I did not say.

If I used emojis, I’d probably use one of a little guy with a puzzled expression scratching his head.

 

[MPat]

If I used emojis, I’d probably use one of a little guy with a puzzled expression scratching his head.

Yes, you get confused easily.

I suppose that James 4:2-3 - “you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not; because you ask amiss” - applies to more than just prayer…

 

[PickyPicky]

Now he does not have any explicit premises that connect the propositions he starts with with “existence of [God/empty set] is doubtful”. But it is clear that conclusion is going to be reached using “Implication elimination”. So, to connect them we need premises with implication. The ones like “If [God/an empty set] must have [a cause/an element], existence of [God/empty set] is doubtful.” and “If [world/set of natural numbers] can be a [thing/set] without [a cause/an element], existence of [God/empty set] is doubtful.”.

No. That is precisely where you go wrong. You have extended what he said to include doubt over the existence of God. If you are going to treat these two sentences as premises in a logical argument, then you have to treat these two sentences, not two other sentences because “it is clear what conclusion is going to be reached”.

Russell’s statement is intended to display that the argument from First Cause, alleged to prove the existence of God, is faulty. So it is: as other posters here have said, even if there is an Uncaused Cause, that Cause is not necessarily God.

 

[MPat]

No. That is precisely where you go wrong. You have extended what he said to include doubt over the existence of God.

Feel free to expand it to “doubt over the existence of God, given argument concerning First Cause” or something.

I was already at the character limit there.

And I do not see any significant difference here.

If you are going to treat these two sentences as premises in a logical argument, then you have to treat these two sentences, not two other sentences because “it is clear what conclusion is going to be reached”.

Um, what…?

Which sentences are “these two sentences”, and which ones are “two other sentences”?

That, by the way, illustrates why I did not want to leave references to “that argument” in any of the steps.

Russell’s statement is intended to display that the argument from First Cause, alleged to prove the existence of God, is faulty.

Yes, that’s his intention. And…?

That, of course, was not intended for its own sake. The intention behind this was to argue that God’s existence is doubtful.

(Naturally, there were more intentions behind this one as well.)

So it is: as other posters here have said, even if there is an Uncaused Cause, that Cause is not necessarily God.

And if there is a set with no elements, it is not necessarily an empty set…?

My dear, “empty set” is precisely the name we use for a set with no elements.

And, likewise, “God” is the name we use for the First Cause.

If, per impossibile, it would be established that First Cause happened to be the world, that would lead to pantheism (the view that God is the world). Even that doesn’t salvage atheism.

 

[PickyPicky]

Feel free to expand it to “doubt over the existence of God, given argument concerning First Cause” or something

No thanks. I’ll stick with Russell. If you want to paraphrase his words as premises in a logical argument, I’m asking that you do so accurately.

Which sentences are “these two sentences”

The two sentences that make up Lord Russell’s quote.

and which ones are “two other sentences”?

The two sentences in which you changed Lord Russell’s argument and presented as premises.

My dear

This is no doubt some local cultural difference on my part, but where I come from addressing a stranger this way is felt to be patronising. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent.

And, likewise, “God” is the name we use for the First Cause

Yes, well I’m fully aware of that. That’s precisely the reason for Russell’s quote and precisely the reason for my post. Equating First Cause automatically and of necessity with God is an assumption which some do not accept,

 

[MPat]

No thanks. I’ll stick with Russell. If you want to paraphrase his words as premises in a logical argument, I’m asking that you do so accurately.

Feel free to do it more accurately yourself, or to point out precisely what went wrong.

So far you have done neither.

The two sentences that make up Lord Russell’s quote.

The two sentences in which you changed Lord Russell’s argument and presented as premises.

So, it’s just an “argument” of the kind “That argument did not look bad before it was put into steps!!!”…?

For that’s what is left, unless you manage to point out a substantial change.

After all, something does have to change, when an argument is being put in another form, so that, by itself, is not a legitimate objection.

And it is not surprising that a sophism looked reasonable before it was put in a different form, after which it started to look silly. They all do. If they did not, we would not call them “sophisms”, only “bad arguments”.

And Russell was certainly sufficiently competent to choose a form that makes a sophism look reasonable. Perhaps even to himself.

Yes, well I’m fully aware of that. That’s precisely the reason for Russell’s quote and precisely the reason for my post. Equating First Cause automatically and of necessity with God is an assumption which some do not accept,

Ah, but what is the point of the “argument”, when you simply “do not accept” the word “God”?

You rejected the word by an unreasonable act of will, because the name looks “scary”. That’s all.

The sophism is only there to hide this unreasonableness. And, probably, mostly from yourself…

 

[PickyPicky]

Feel free to do it more accurately yourself, or to point out precisely what went wrong.

So far you have done neither

I really don’t need to: you admitted boldly yourself where you had altered Russell’s argument:

Russell does not give that conclusion explicitly, only “there cannot be any validity in that argument” in one branch, so I replace it with “existence of [God/empty set] is doubtful”, which is equivalent and avoids ambiguous “that argument”

And now this curious statement:

Ah, but what is the point of the “argument”, when you simply “do not accept” the word “God”?

Of course I accept the word “God”. I used it in the line you quoted. What I do not accept is the concept that “Uncaused Cause” cannot equate to anything other than God.

I don’t understand why you find that difficult to grasp: it’s a common enough argument — indeed it’s the argument Russell is making.

If you won’t address what Russell actually said, this conversation is evidently going nowhere.

 

[MPat]

If you won’t address what Russell actually said, this conversation is evidently going nowhere.

Um, did you think this conversation was going to “go somewhere”?

That was, um, pretty unlikely long ago.

For example, after this:

This is no doubt some local cultural difference on my part, but where I come from addressing a stranger this way is felt to be patronising. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent.

Such sensitivity to “patronising” clearly shows that you aren’t exactly open minded about “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

And without being open to possibility that we might be fools in some way (or a demonstration ruling this possibility out), no serious discussion of such matters is possible.

I really don’t need to: you admitted boldly yourself where you had altered Russell’s argument:

“Change” or rewording as such are perfectly legitimate.

Unless, of course, the meaning gets changed in a substantial way.

Which would be rather easy to show.

Yet you avoid any effort to show it…

Of course I accept the word “God”. I used it in the line you quoted. What I do not accept is the concept that “Uncaused Cause” cannot equate to anything other than God.

I don’t understand why you find that difficult to grasp: it’s a common enough argument — indeed it’s the argument Russell is making.

Have you considered a possibility that I do see both what you think your position rests on, and what your position really rests on (or, at least, what I think it rests on)?

For, you see, nothing you wrote makes that any less likely.

Unless, of course, you add a common atheist assumption that atheists are “smarter” than theists.

For then, if you didn’t catch some meaning in my words, you kinda could support the conclusion that there was nothing to catch - to some extent.

Which, for all I know, might have happened explicitly…

Yet, can you justify that assumption? Not in a circular way…?

 

[PickyPicky]

Such sensitivity to “patronising” clearly shows that you aren’t exactly open minded about “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Sorry, I don’t follow the connection.

“Change” or rewording as such are perfectly legitimate.

Unless, of course, the meaning gets changed in a substantial way.

Which would be rather easy to show.

Yet you avoid any effort to show it…

Well, OK, perhaps I haven’t been clear, although I certainly attempted to show it here:

No. That is precisely where you go wrong. You have extended what he said to include doubt over the existence of God.

Let me try again. I have no issue with you dissecting Russell’s words point by point, or in you rephrasing them in such a way that they can be demonstrated as sound or unsound, true or untrue. His words in fact needed rephrasing if they are to be treated in the way you wish, because, as I am sure you are aware, the quote does not come from one of Russell’s serious, ground-breaking academic philosophical works, but from an address, so its tone is epigrammatic. My complaint is simply that your phrasing did not reflect what he was saying.

[cont …]

 

[PickyPicky]

[cont …]

As I’m sure you know, the quote is from Russell’s well-known address explaining why he was not a Christian. It took what he held to be the arguments in favour of Christianity one by one, and dealt with them one by one. The quote is from the section in which he tries to show that the argument from First Cause is faulty.

So although the whole address could rightly be said to be a dissertation on the arguments for the existence of God, the section in which this quote appears is simply aimed at the argument from First Cause — which, of course, is why it is relevant to this topic.

To show me why Russell in this quote is mistaken, therefore, it needs to be treated not as an argument for the, as you put it, dubious nature of God, but simply as an point made against the argument from First Cause. Such a treatment would not only be pertinent to Russell’s comment, it would be pertinent to this topic.

[cont…]

 

[PickyPicky]

[cont] …

Unless, of course, you add a common atheist assumption that atheists are “smarter” than theists

I don’t know whether that is a common atheist assumption. It is certainly not an assumption I make.

 

[MPat]

His words in fact needed rephrasing if they are to be treated in the way you wish,

Good.

My complaint is simply that your phrasing did not reflect what he was saying.

Yes, and that has to be demonstrated, and not just asserted. So, let’s look at your justification.

As I’m sure you know, the quote is from Russell’s well-known address explaining why he was not a Christian.

So, since his goal was to explain why he was not a Christian, but an atheist, and, to be still more precise, to justify such, um, state of affairs, wasn’t each of his arguments there meant to advance his thesis? Or do you want to claim that Russell was writing something irrelevant?

And his thesis is, naturally, that it was reasonable for him to be an atheist rather than a Christian, to doubt God’s existence. Or, in other words, his thesis is that God’s existence is doubtful.

Now, maybe he is not trying to reach this very thesis right away, but he is going to have some argument - explicit or implicit, good or bad - from his conclusion in the argument we are discussing to his thesis.

And if he is, and I do not have a reason to deny the relevant connection, why not mention it?

And, well, let’s try it the other way as well…

Do you want to deny propositions I put as “premise 1” and “premise 2”? Do you think Russell would have chosen to deny them?

For if you do not choose to deny them, and I did not object to them, but to “premise 3” (which does not include the word “doubtful”), your objection seems to be beside the point.

the section in which this quote appears is simply aimed at the argument from First Cause — which, of course, is why it is relevant to this topic.

Kalaam or Thomistic First Way?

Of course, it is easy to see that the things Russell said do not refer to any part of any of those arguments as such. It only concerns the part explaining their conclusion - that “First Cause” will be called “God” afterwards.

And while he mentions “validity”, it is clear that he does not establish anything about it.

For validity of an argument could be disproved in two ways:

1. By examining the steps and finding a step that is not a premise and does not follow from preceding steps and rules.
2. By showing that the the same form of an argument could give false conclusion with true premises.

But Russell does neither.

To show me why Russell in this quote is mistaken, therefore, it needs to be treated not as an argument for the, as you put it, dubious nature of God,

I did not write that sequence of words, so, it is not “how put it”.

When I say that Russel is trying to advance a thesis that God’s existence is doubtful, that is obviously not a thesis that refers only to God’s nature. It refers to Russel as well: he is claiming it is reasonable for him to doubt.

 

[Chistian-ity]

I’ve never been quite interested in first cause arguments, but why not just say the first cause is a synonym for god in this case, and by making the first cause god and not god the first cause we leave behind all the assumptions preloaded into the term god. The two are synonymous.

 

[Richca]

Rubee:

Why do you think its impossible to perceive the world of matter without physical organs?

Because the eye is a physical organ which enables it to see physical objects as photons from the object perceived as the photons impinge upon the eye. I don’t see the mechanism which enables a pure spirit to perceive a physical object.

A pure spirit such as God or the angels perceive/know or ‘see’ physical objects through a superior intellectual power than human beings have who are a spirit in a body and who rely on bodily organs and senses and external stimuli for their perceptions and knowledge of external things. Exactly how this works for God and the angels I think is something we will only fully know in the next life.

A possible glimpse or kind of analogy of ‘seeing’ without bodily eyes or the external medium of light is by looking at our own imagination. We can close our eyes and ‘see’ or picture to ourselves just about everything we see with our eyes open. Through our imagination, we can picture to ourselves the sun shining, daytime and nighttime, the sky, our parents, dog, house, car, etc. All this with our eyes closed and without the external medium of light. I think this is an interesting consideration in regards to the question asked.

 

[PickyPicky]

First I should reply to this:

I did not write that sequence of words, so, it is not “how put it”

You are quite right — I worded it clumsily and I apologise. Of course you did not say or imply that you thought God’s existence dubious.

That aside, I find I have said all I want to say in response to your comments, and I would really rather not go over the same ground yet again.

I wish you well.

 

[EugeneCharles]

Imagine that there are many first causes that exist. The way the world was created and runs will be confusing and messed up because there could have been different ways the world had been created.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it

Even with no mind to realize or understand it, 2 things of any description +3 things of any description would be a total of 5 things. Those things do not even have to exist. Let the things be purple unicorns. 2 of them + 3 of them = 5 of them is a fact.

Simply false. The concept of “sum” would not exist if no mind existed. Therefore, it is false to say that 2+3=5 with no mind to understand it.
Suppose we postulate that a rock could exist “by itself”, as materialists believe they do. If 5 rocks existed without no mind, there would be only 5 rocks and no mathematical relation would be involved in their existence. This is the point you’ve missed.
On the contrary, all we know about the physical reality shows that the physical reality implies abstract mathematical models, which, in their turn, imply the existence of a thinking mind. In fact, quantum fields and quantum particles are intrinsically abstract mathematical structures. This proves that the above hypothesis that a rock can exist “by itself” is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges about the physical reality.