Does everything physical need a cause?

[AlNg]

It does claim that anything that changes requires a first mover that is itself unchanged and fully actual

Everything that moves is moved by another? Let’s suppose we look at that. The problem here is that motion is relative. What is moving in one frame, may be moving in a different direction or may not be moving at all in another frame.

 

[AlNg]

explain what is meant by “big lake”,

A lake of considerable size.

 

[Gorgias]

There is still a violation of the principle of non-contradiction because the following two contradictory statements are true according to intelligent people.

No, because – yet again – you’re talking about a personal opinion. Opinion is not what we’re talking about here.

 

[MPat]

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.

And? Some “intelligent people” are wrong. And meaning of “fit for the job” is still unexplained.

For example, “Trump is fit for the job.” can mean “I like Trump more than Hillary Clinton.”. In that case some people (who like Trump) can say that is true, and some can say it is false, but in each case it becomes “x likes Trump more than Hillary Clinton.”, with x taking different values for different people. Naturally, with some values we will get true proposition, and with some others - false proposition.

A lake of considerable size.

And let me guess: “considerable size” will be “explained” by “not inconsiderable size”?

Everything that moves is moved by another? Let’s suppose we look at that. The problem here is that motion is relative. What is moving in one frame, may be moving in a different direction or may not be moving at all in another frame.

In this case “moving” means “changing”.

 

[AlNg]

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.”.

The law of non-contradiction can also be stated as follows:
The following statement is always true:
~(p&~p),
But let us take the definition you give above. And let us take the attribute of true. Then according to that, a statement cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
However, consider the following proposition p:

I am lying right now.

If p is true, then p is false.
If p is false, then p is true.

Or for another example.
Suppose there is a bag of sand and I can lift that bag of sand.
Is the following statement true or false? I can add one grain of sand to that bag and still lift it.

 

[MPat]

However, consider the following proposition p:

I am lying right now.

If p is true, then p is false.

If p is false, then p is true.

Actually, you were talking nonsense at the moment, thus the proposition is false.

In fact, while that was meant to be a joke, that’s very close to the solution: the statement you made is meaningless, it is neither true nor false.

Or for another example.

Suppose there is a bag of sand and I can lift that bag of sand.

Is the following statement true or false? I can add one grain of sand to that bag and still lift it.

If there actually was such a bag (and a precise definition of “to lift”), it would be either true or false. But, since the actual weight of the bag is left deliberately unspecified, it is meaningless.

So, anything else?

 

[HarryStotle]

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

Actually, the law of non-contradiction assumes black is black, white is white and grey is grey. That just means grey needs to be properly understood with regard to just how achromatic it is.

What you are peddling is that the law of non-contradiction must to be false because grey is made up of some black and some white, ignoring completely that someone who makes a legitimately “grey” claim doesn’t claim that grey is black and doesn’t claim that grey is white. That would be you reading something into the claim that isn’t there.

Granted, there are some who make “grey” claims that they purport are actually black or white claims, but that is a horse of an entirely different colour.

And don’t even think about bringing up any of that “rainbow” nonsense.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Everything that moves is moved by another? Let’s suppose we look at that. The problem here is that motion is relative. What is moving in one frame, may be moving in a different direction or may not be moving at all in another frame.

Yes, motion is relative to your frame of reference. But that is not what is meant by motion here. The kind of motion you are referring to is called local motion by Aristotelians. Motion simply meant any change itself. So for instance the coffee cooling to room temperature is a motion or change from hot to lukewarm.

 

[BlackFriar]

I suppose the issue is whether the mere existence of a physical thing is an effect.

But why restrict the question to the physical.
Couldnt it be just as well asked of spirits?

 

[BlackFriar]

Is creation ex nihilo “change”?

 

[neophyte]

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

Not Understanding Nothing | Edward Feser

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by lawrence m. . . . .

www.firstthings.com

 

[Wesrock]

MPat:

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?

Keep in mind that none of the arguments are “everything needs a cause”. Here are examples of the claims:

• All things that change require a cause.
• All things that are composite have a cause.
• All things that come into being have a cause.

Notice here that these claims make no statement about beings that do not change, are simple, and are eternal. Nor does it state that all things change, are composite, or come into being. It is therefore not special pleading for something outside of the scope of these claims to, well, be outside the scope of the claims. It should be clear that there is no special pleading.

Now, even if your opponent were to accept those claims as true, she might then ask you to prove that there is only one such being and that this being has the qualities commonly associated with God, such as there only being one, and His omnipotence and omniscience and Him having some type of mind. That can be argued for. Edward Feser makes an excellent demonstration of this, both informal and formal, in his book “Five Proofs for the Existence of God,” particularly in his discussion on the Aristotlean argument from motion (change), for example.

 

[pocaracas]

All that we know of in physics, concerning this subject, follows a few basic laws that were discovered a few years ago:

1. Newton’s first law, aka, law of inertia - a body at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion with the same trajectory and velocity, unless some force acts upon it.
2. Second law of Thermodynamics - the Entropy in a closed system will always increase or, in a perfectly stable system, remain the same.
3. Conservation of Energy - the Energy in a closed system remains constant.

One can say that the Universe is the ultimate closed system.
Cosmology tells us that the Universe is expanding and that, at some point in the past, it was pretty compressed… Physics is, however, not fully equipped to answer how that compressed state came to be.
Krauss’ “universe from nothing” draws upon the concept of quantum fluctuations to propose a mechanism by which space-time itself can bring about particles and, thus, matter - what we call physical objects.

The unvomed mover, the uncreated creator, the first cause is then chalked up to “simple” random space-time fluctuations. No conscious entity required. No plan required. No nothing required (actual philosophical nothing) - just space-time.
Conservation of Energy is achieved by noting that Dark matter and Dark Energy have been indirectly measured and seem to lead to an overall energy content of the Universe of Zero.

A cool notion that arises from Krauss’ suggestion is that of the Multiverse. If those quantum fluctuations led to a Universe… then similar random fluctuations can bring about other universes. In an infinite space-time scenario that would lead to infinite Universes, each of them a closed zero-energy system, thus incapable of ever probing beyond themselves.

 

[Wesrock]

The fact that there were quantum fluctuations or an area of space governed by the laws of QM means it wasn’t a state of nothing.

 

[pocaracas]

The fact that there were quantum fluctuations or an area of space governed by the laws of QM means it wasn’t a state of nothing.

Indeed. It would be a state of space-time with zero matter and energy.
How close to nothing is that?

 

[Wesrock]

The gap might as well be as wide as the universe. Almost nothing is not nothing.

 

[pocaracas]

The gap might as well be as wide as the universe. Almost nothing is not nothing.

Is it possible to consider that space-time is the truly eternal framework from which everything we know of spawns?

Or are you wanting to posit that one still needs somehow to account for the origin of space-time itself? The cause of space-time?
It is unknowable… but all those prime mover arguments point to space-time being it, perhaps?..

 

[IWantGod]

He is either fit for the job or he isn’t. Somebody is correct and somebody isn’t correct depending on the terms of his employ. Peoples intelligence is irrelevant. Also things can get complicated by the fact that people have different opinions on what fit for the job means and whether or not Trump fits that criteria in the context of character assessment; this is the nature of politics because its a pragmatic system and different people have different pragmatic agendas. Also people are able to disagree in this context because there is a lack of knowledge involved which leaves the truth of the matter open to debate and discrimination.

This is clearly not the same thing as asking if a square-triangle can exist. We know what a square is and we know what a triangle is and that’s why we know for certain there is no such thing a Square-Triangle. There is no room for debate.

 

[Wesrock]

Space-time, physical laws, etc… involve extension in space, some manner of being composite, and space-time, even if it has existed for infinite time, is not eternal in the sense of being immutable and unchanging. Without getting into it, an explanation that space-time is the first cause is not sufficient. Plus, if it follows that the first cause must be pure actuality without potential, and if it’s true that it follows it must be one, simple, and having knowledge (I haven’t given any arguments for these here, that would have to be done at length), all of that serves to demonstrate that a teapot, flying spaghetti monster, laws of nature, the fabric of space-time… all cannot be the First Cause, for the first cause cannot possess any properties that require being caused.

It’s not a matter of just arbitrarily choosing one thing as being the first cause “just because”, but about (1) deducing that there must be a First Cause and (2) describing that first cause, as much as it can be described, by determining what it can’t be (it can’t be composite, changing, extended through space, have a beginning… etc… precisely because any of these require a cause, and we can’t engage in special pleading)

Let’s just assume for a moment that the following two statements are valid:
(1) There must be an uncaused first cause
(2) All things that change are caused.

The conclusion that must follow is that the uncaused first cause does not change. Likewise with any other such statements.

I’m not saying you should just assume those statements are true. Any good argument should be reasonably demonstrated. But hopefully it is clear(er) why there is no special pleading and why something like a teapot or even space-time could be a first cause.

 

[Gorgias]

Everything that moves is moved by another?

We’re using Aristotelian terminology here. It’s not just the limited definition of “physical motion”; Aristotle is talking about change, which includes the change of “coming into being.”

You’re confusing modern physics with philosophy.