Does everything physical need a cause?

[yawnernonner]

I was challenged on the Kalam cosmological argument (if you don’t know what that is then don’t answer this question) and I realized that I didn’t know how to respond. Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause? It seems so intuitive. It’s like being asked to prove 2+2=4. But it’s true, so there is proof for it. Does everything physical need a cause?

 

[MPat]

But it’s true, so there is proof for it.

No, that’s bad reasoning.

It is true that everything that has a good proof is true. But it doesn’t follow that everything that is true has a proof.

Axioms do not have proofs - and they do not need proofs. To take a common example, Law of non-contradiction is clearly impossible to prove, as any proof would need it.

Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause?

In principle, you could show that this is a special case of each change needing a cause. But that is not very useful in a discussion, since that principle will be rejected too.

Yet you can demonstrate (not to your opponent, but to yourself and reasonable observers) that your opponent already believes that things need a cause to begin to exist.

For example, you can inform him that he owes you one million dollars. No, there is no cause - the debt just started to exist without a cause. For, if things can just start to exist without a cause, why can’t such a debt do so?

Or you can point out that assuming that things could just begin to exist without a cause would dismantle all science, all law enforcement.

Or you could point to Law of Conservation of Energy. It tells us that energy for a physical thing that began to exist has to come from somewhere.

 

[yawnernonner]

Or you can point out that assuming that things could just begin to exist without a cause would dismantle all science, all law enforcement.

How could I answer that without immediately getting the response “but what about God, why doesn’t it apply to Him?” and then not get listened to on the grounds of special pleading?

 

[AlNg]

Law of non-contradiction is clearly impossible to prove,

The law of non-contradiction is not true and it can easily be proven to be false by a simple example.
Take the following two propositions: They contradict each other, but both are true:

1. Trump is a good ;president.
2. Trump is not a good president.

Here is another example:

1. Lake Mead is big.
2. Lake Mead is not big.

They are contradictory but they are both true.

1. Is true because Lake Mead is much bigger than Beaver Lake or Lake George.
2. Is true because Lake Mead is not big in comparison with Lake Superior or Lake Huron.

 

[Gorgias]

The law of non-contradiction is not true and it can easily be proven to be false by a simple example.

Take the following two propositions: They contradict each other, but both are true:

Lake Mead is big.
Lake Mead is not big.

They are contradictory but they are both true.

Is true because Lake Mead is much bigger than Beaver Lake or Lake George.
Is true because Lake Mead is not big in comparison with Lake Superior or Lake Huron.

You might want to read up on what the Law of Non-Contradiction really says. Your examples melt away when you understand it properly.

(Hint: ‘in the same sense’ and ‘at the same time’…)

 

[Edward_H]

Only for those things that can’t cause themselves.

But if you can show something that can cause itself, let us and St Thomas Aquinas know.

 

[Gorgias]

How could I answer that without immediately getting the response “but what about God, why doesn’t it apply to Him?” and then not get listened to on the grounds of special pleading?

“Special pleading” isn’t a catch-all objection. After all, if I said “dogs bark” and you replied “well… but Garfield doesn’t bark!”, but I countered with “Garfield isn’t a dog!”… that wouldn’t be ‘special pleading’.

Special pleading only attaches when there’s not a valid reason for the exception being claimed. “Because God is not a physical being within the universe” isn’t special pleading – it’s an explanation of why the nature of physical entities in the created universe doesn’t apply to God!

(if you don’t know what that is then don’t answer this question)

Not cool.

I was challenged on the Kalam cosmological argument and I realized that I didn’t know how to respond. Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause?

Maybe you don’t know the Kalam cosmological argument yourself?

It doesn’t posit “physical things”, it posits “things that have a beginning”. So, the answer to your question is in the question itself: physical things need a cause because physical things have a beginning.

 

[neophyte]

I was challenged on the Kalam cosmological argument (if you don’t know what that is then don’t answer this question) and I realized that I didn’t know how to respond. Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause?

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
Physical things begin to exist.
Therefore, physical things must have a cause.

Things with no beginning do not begin to exist.
God has no beginning.
Therefore, God does not begin to exist and has no cause.

 

[MPat]

How could I answer that without immediately getting the response “but what about God, why doesn’t it apply to Him?” and then not get listened to on the grounds of special pleading?

Just as you noted in the original post: because God does not begin to exist.

But, of course, the mere fact that no fallacy is here won’t result in your opponent not claiming fallacy anyway. Just don’t have an unrealistic goal of persuading him right away.

 

[AlNg]

You might want to read up on what the Law of Non-Contradiction really says. Your examples melt away when you understand it properly.

(Hint: ‘in the same sense’ and ‘at the same time’…)

It doesn’t help too much when dealing with real life situations. Take for example the following two contradictory statements:

1. Republicans are not responsible for the government shutdown, but the Democrats are.
2. Democrats are not responsible for the government shutdown, but the Republicans are.
   You are going to find intelligent people who say that 1 is true and you are going to find intelligent people who say that 2 is true. Each will present compelling arguments.

There is a problem with the principle of non-contradiction because it assumes things are either black or white. but things can be gray.

 

[yawnernonner]

Why do things that begin to exist need a cause? The person with whom I argued brought this up.

 

[MPat]

It doesn’t help too much when dealing with real life situations. Take for example the following two contradictory statements:

1. Republicans are not responsible for the government shutdown, but the Democrats are.
2. Democrats are not responsible for the government shutdown, but the Republicans are.

You are going to find intelligent people who say that 1 is true and you are going to find intelligent people who say that 2 is true. Each will present compelling arguments.

There is a problem with the principle of non-contradiction because it assumes things are either black or white. but things can be gray.

First, “intelligent people” can be just wrong. Even if they offer “compelling” arguments (that is, persuasive to you).

Second, do look at what Law of Non-contradiction really says. For example, Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”, Book Γ (Commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas in http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics4.htm#6): “It is that the same attribute cannot both belong and not belong to the same subject at the same time and in the same respect; and let us stipulate any other qualifications that have to be laid down to meet dialectical difficulties.”.

Are you going to claim that Republicans (or Democrats) are both responsible and not responsible for government shutdown at the same time and in the same respect?

By the way, even if you are, those “intelligent people” you cited are sure to disagree.

Let’s solve the other sophisms you offered:

Take the following two propositions: They contradict each other, but both are true:

1. Trump is a good ;president.
2. Trump is not a good president.

Let’s note that it is not explained what is meant by “good president”. Solve this ambiguity, and it will be clear that there is no contradiction.

Here is another example:

1. Lake Mead is big.
2. Lake Mead is not big.

They are contradictory but they are both true.

1. Is true because Lake Mead is much bigger than Beaver Lake or Lake George.
2. Is true because Lake Mead is not big in comparison with Lake Superior or Lake Huron.

Again, explain what is meant by “big lake”, and contradiction will disappear.

Why do things that begin to exist need a cause? The person with whom I argued brought this up.

That seems to be the same question, as in the original post. Is there anything else that hasn’t been covered already?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Cause and effect principle, is what I’ve seen atheists use to deny the concept of free will.

Their position is that human’s make choices because of a biological cause
such as brain chemistry etc.

Anyway, mostly watching the discussion here, but feel free to provide insight on this argument,

Jim

 

[IWantGod]

I was challenged on the Kalam cosmological argument (if you don’t know what that is then don’t answer this question) and I realized that I didn’t know how to respond. Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause? It seems so intuitive. It’s like being asked to prove 2+2=4. But it’s true, so there is proof for it. Does everything physical need a cause?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not my go to argument. But it is clearly misunderstood.

Every effect needs a cause even if that effect is also a cause to another effect. There cannot be an infinite regress of effects, or intermediary causes that are themselves effects, because then there is no reason for any effect to exist regardless of how many there are i n relation to one another. Therefore there has to be a cause that is not an effect or a collection of effects.

 

[neophyte]

Why do things that begin to exist need a cause? The person with whom I argued brought this up.

Think of it in terms of contingency. A thing that has no cause is contingent on either nothing, or itself; in either case it will either exist always with no beginning, or not at all. So if something begins to exist it must have a cause.

 

[IWantGod]

Why do things that begin to exist need a cause? The person with whom I argued brought this up.

Because you would be getting something from absolutely nothing which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. How can one get being from the absence of all being? Its clearly not possible. There has to be an absolute eternal being that gives being to all other potential beings.

The only way out of this argument is to get rid of reason. If that’s what your friend wants to do there is no point reasoning with that person and it makes no sense for him/her to use reason in their daily lives.

 

[Kei]

Ask him to say alakazam and bring a chair into existence.

It won’t happen because chairs don’t pop into existence.

But if it did, it would be because he said alakazam.

It’s just silly to claim that that which begins to exist doesn’t have a cause.

 

[Gorgias]

You are going to find intelligent people who say that 1 is true and you are going to find intelligent people who say that 2 is true. Each will present compelling arguments.

Close, but no cigar. A disputed issue (especially in the realm of politics!) does not rise to the level of a “logical proposition” that can be shown to be true.

There is a problem with the principle of non-contradiction because it assumes things are either black or white. but things can be gray.

Again, you’re misconstruing the context. Sorry.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why do physical things need a cause? Why don’t things with no beginning (God) need a cause? It seems so intuitive. It’s like being asked to prove 2+2=4. But it’s true, so there is proof for it. Does everything physical need a cause?

The best answers to those sorts of questions that I have found is in classical theism. In classical theism God is not some sort of god of the gaps argument where we don’t know what caused x therefore it must be God. Rather these are deductive arguments based on general observations that everyone knows like there is change in the world and deductively moving to an unmoved mover or unchanged changer that is a first cause of all that exists. The argument doesn’t claim that everything has a cause. It does claim that anything that changes requires a first mover that is itself unchanged and fully actual. If the first mover required a cause then it would not be fully actalized and could not be our first cause. But in this argument the series of causes can not be infinite. So there must be a first member. And this first member must be fully actualized in order to bring everything else into existence. You will see what I mean if you watch this video by Dr. Edward Feser. This video is basically the first chapter of his new book ‘5 Proofs for the Existence of God’.

 

[AlNg]

Let’s note that it is not explained what is meant by “good president”.

It means worthy and fit for the job. There is still a violation of the principle of non-contradiction because the following two contradictory statements are true according to intelligent people.

1. Trump is fit for the job.
2. Trump is not fit for the job.