Everything that started to Exist, must have an External Cause for its Existence

[danserr]

Plausibility is not the point. Certainly we observe zillions of causative events. The problem is the step of generalization: “we observe zillions of causations, therefore causation is universal”. A clear example of the “no white raven…” fallacy.

This is the another problematic assertion, and it has been addressed. The universe is not a “thing”, it is the collection of “things”. To say that all members of a set have a certain propery of “X”, and therefore the collection also has the property of “X” is the fallacy of composition.

You seem to want to make alot of arguing that the causal principle is reached by inductive and that inductive reasoning is unreliable and should make us general skeptics (ie. we should withhold judgment because who knows if a black goose, raven, helmeted hornbill, or some other avian species might later be found. But are you seriously denying the ability of one to draw conclusions based on inductive reasoning? History and Science are almost completely based on inductive reasoning. When they work deductively, it is on principles drawn from inductive reasoning. To ask us not to draw conclusions based on inductive reasoning is to ask us to give up science and history (I don’t want to give up history, it’s too much fun). If you believe that the holocaust happened, or the witch-hunts, or if Rome existed, or the evolution of species, you are committed to accepting the value of inductive reasoning. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” for goodness’ sake was based on inductive reasoning! He didn’t examine every single species in the world before he published his studies!

fallacy of composition

a). You also want to make alot of the composition fallacy. But you misuse this fallacy, partly for the reason I give above. Scientists make generalizations all the time based on observation and experiment. Darwin and evolution for instance, or when a scientist clinically tests a new drug to see if it will be effective. They then apply their conclusions to the whole. By your reasoning, they commit composition fallacy, yet obviously, that is not the case.
b). Second, the composition fallacy is not relevant to the argument I suggest anyway. It is relevant to the argument that the “causal principle is confirmed in our experience.” (though fails against it for the reason I give above). But I said a separate argument in favor of the causal principle “if something can come from nothing, it is inexplicable why anything and everything does not come from nothing.” If you are seriously suggesting that something (the universe, which is indeed a thing) can come into existence from nothing, then what reason can you give that everything and anything does not similarly come into existence?
c). Far from the composition fallacy being relevant, the skeptic risks committed the “taxicab fallacy,” when he says that the causal principle is true of everything in the universe, but not the universe itself, since, as Arthur Schopenhauer once remarked, the causal principle is not something you can dismiss like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination.
d). Do you really thing being can come from non-being? That something can come from nothing? Do you seriously find this more plausible than not? If so why? What reason can you give for the universe being an exception to the causal principle? If, on the other hand, you think the causal principle more probable than not, then you should accept it.

 

[Spock]

But are you seriously denying the ability of one to draw conclusions based on inductive reasoning?

Of course not! All I am saying is that you cannot make a “global”, epistemological assertion about the principle of causation. It is very likely that strict causation is “global”, at least in the non-living part of the world. Though, based upon some observations of virtual particles there might be exceptions. Such events will not “destroy” science, just like Einstein’s relativity did not “destroy” Newton’s equations, merely rendered them to the status of a “special case”.

History and Science are almost completely based on inductive reasoning. When they work deductively, it is on principles drawn from inductive reasoning. To ask us not to draw conclusions based on inductive reasoning is to ask us to give up science and history (I don’t want to give up history, it’s too much fun).

Science is, but history is not. History is completely descriptive. It does not make predictions. But this is beside the point.

You also want to make alot of the composition fallacy.

You misunderstand my position. Many times we can make the generalization step correctly. Example: all the tiles of the floor are white, therefore the whole floor is white - a correct generalization. Counter example: all the tiles of the floor are square, therefore the whole floor is square - an incorrect generalization. The problem is not the generalization per se, it is the unsupported nature of the generalization. You cannot declare ex-cathedra that there are no exceptions of causation. You must reason for it. And since we assume the existence of free will, therefore our “free” decisions are not determined (not caused) by external causes. Thus we have a counter example to generality of causation.

If you are seriously suggesting that something (the universe, which is indeed a thing) can come into existence from nothing, then what reason can you give that everything and anything does not similarly come into existence?

Another misunderstanding. I did not say that the universe “came from nothing”. What I am saying is that the universe (composed of STEM) simply exists. It did not “come” from anywhere, it does not “go” anywhere, it simply “is”.

I say the same thing about the universe what you say about God. If stating that God simply exists does not lead to a logical contradiction (and it does not!), then saying that the universe simply exists does not lead to a logical contradiction either. And the conservation laws (matter energy, momentum, etc.) support that the universe needs no external cause. How could it be “caused”? Causation is a physical interaction between physical particles. All physical particles are part of the universe.

You argued in your previous post against the introduction of “magic”. I agree, there is no magic. Positing some “non-material entity” which can “will” a physical entity into existence would be “magic”. It would be the case of “something comes out of nothing”.

 

[danserr]

You misunderstand my position. Many times we can make the generalization step correctly… since we assume the existence of free will, therefore our “free” decisions are not determined (not caused) by external causes. Thus we have a counter example to generality of causation.

a). I think you are mistaken in considering free will a counter-example to the causal principle. The causal principle holds that “every thing that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” Now free will is not really a thing in the same way a tree, puppy, the universe, or God is.
b). Actually, I wonder if your example would actually support the idea of a creator. Since you think that a “personal cause” (free will) could be un-caused and so not require an external cause. Now obviously the universe is not personal, (so your analogy would fail for this reason alone), and because the universe is not personal if it has a cause, the cause would have to be personal. I do not insist on this at this point, we are only discussing the first step of a version of the cosmological argument, that “everything that beings to exist has a cause,” but I think this shows why the existence of free will does not negate this principle (it is a false analogy, and free will is not a “thing,”).
c). Why should the universe be an exception to the causal principle? Can you give some reason it is? Remember the taxicab fallacy. Do you think the causal principle is more probable than not?

Another misunderstanding. I did not say that the universe “came from nothing”. What I am saying is that the universe (composed of STEM) simply exists. It did not “come” from anywhere, it does not “go” anywhere, it simply “is”.

I say the same thing about the universe what you say about God. If stating that God simply exists does not lead to a logical contradiction (and it does not!), then saying that the universe simply exists does not lead to a logical contradiction either. And the conservation laws (matter energy, momentum, etc.) support that the universe needs no external cause. How could it be “caused”? Causation is a physical interaction between physical particles. All physical particles are part of the universe.

a). Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You are not really saying that the universe just popped into existence of nothing, instead you are saying that is always existed “it did not come from anywhere…it just is.” So you essentially accept this causal principle as it applies to the universe, you just question the idea that the universe had a beginning. So the next step of the argument would be to show that the universe had a beginning (a topic for another thread though, since I guess this thread is devoted to discussing the causal principle).
b). I agree that saying the universe just exists does not lead to a logical contradiction. But the fact that something is logically (by which we mean theoretically) conceivable, does not make it metaphysically (or “really”) possible or probable. For there is also no logical contradiction in saying that God created the universe, so how should we decide which to believe? We need reasons in support of either belief, either that the universe began to exist or that it did not. (At this point, I agree the burden would be on the theist to offer probable reasons that the universe began to exist; though in terms of exceptions to the causal principle, the burden is on the skeptic to justify such exceptions)
c). Conservation laws do not support the idea the universe is uncaused for the simple reason that they are “physical” laws. They only operate once the universe and matter exists. They describe the way it acts once it actually exists, but in no way prevent God from creating that matter and then having the laws take effect once the matter is created.
d). Why can God be un-caused but not the universe? This seems to be in the background of much of your skepticism, but the answer is simple. Now the causal principle applies both to God and to the universe. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.” I agree that this applies both to God and the universe. But by itself, this does not mean that either are caused, just that "if they began to exist they have causes. It remains to argue that the universe or God began to exist. It is posible to offer arguments that the universe had a beginning (an actual infinite, like number of past events, is not constructable, therefore not actualize-able; Big Bang Cosmology and expansion of the universe) that would apply to the universe, but not God. So we would have reasons to think that the universe had a beginning and so require a cause, but no reason to think that God began to exist, so he would not require a cause.

 

[danserr]

You argued in your previous post against the introduction of “magic”. I agree, there is no magic. Positing some “non-material entity” which can “will” a physical entity into existence would be “magic”. It would be the case of "something comes out of nothing

Well, you have not argued against my suggestion that suggestion that things can pop into existence out of nothing is akin to magic, but consider this separate point. You say:

How could it be “caused”? Causation is a physical interaction between physical particles.

, but you also suggest that free will is an exception. Obviously if the physical universe and particles are all there is, then there is not free will by your logic here. But in free will, the mind, uncaused, acts. And what is more, the mind, uncaused, may act on physical matter.

1. You say that causation is a physical interaction of particles.
2. You believe in free will, that is to say, personal actions are uncaused.
3. If free will is uncaused, then my mind acts on the matter of my brain to bring about a desired result.
4. So you have a cause of a mind acting on matter in a causal relationship. This contradicts your statement that causation is the physical interaction of particles.

The explanation of this is easy to see, when you distinguish types of causation. You refer to the first type, “scientific explanation” which refers to laws operating on conditions, but neglect the other type, “personal explanation” in terms of agents and volitions." You are correct in saying the universe cannot have a scientific cause (and so you suggest, it had not cause at all, it just existed), but that the universe could still have a personal explanation. So there is no magic at all about this. I agree the cause would have to be enormously powerful to be able to create the universe with no material cause, but this is how we have always conceived God anyway.

 

[wanstronian]

A bit late to the party, I’m afraid…

“Everything that started to Exist, must have an External Cause for its Existence.”

Okay. Firstly, how does one define the set of “things that started to exist?” Secondly, how does one define the set of “things that did not start to exist?” How does one show that this second set can hypothetically contain more than one member? (this is necessary to avoid implicitly inserting the conclusion into the premise).

And as Spock points out, applying axiomatic rules of causality that occur within our universe, to the universe itself, is problematic. It’s not necessarily wrong, but there’s no way of showing that it’s right. As such, any conclusion based on such a premise is unsafe.

If one ignores these problems and accepts that something caused the universe, we’re still no closer to any answers. We can’t possibly know what caused it.

Finally, if one is uncritical enough to sweep all these other problems under the carpet and arrive at the the conclusion that God caused the universe, this doesn’t preclude the question, “what caused God?” To simply declare that God didn’t begin to exist amounts to Special Pleading, and invalidates the argument. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the “begins to exist” clause in the KCA is tailor-made to set a defined-as-eternal God as the answer. So the KCA also commits the fallacy of begging the question.

So: Special Pleading, Begging the Question, Indefinite Premises, and Compositional fallacies, not to mention the implicit Single Cause fallacy. The KCA, like all other variants of the Cosmological Argument, fails under scrutiny. Like all philosophical “proofs,” it’s compelling to those who want its conclusion to be true.

ps. I haven’t read Hawking’s book, or anything about it, so this is just a guess; but in claiming that “philosophy is dead,” is he not referring to the idea that science has rendered philosophy useless as a way of describing our world? This seems obvious to me - when did philosophy actually prove anything?

 

[danserr]

“what caused God?” To simply declare that God didn’t begin to exist amounts to Special Pleading

Hardly.

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause. (This applies to God too).
2. The universe began to exist
3. the universe has a cause.

If we can establish reasons in support of 2, (the universe began to exist) that don’t apply to God, then this is hardly a case of “special pleading.”

Firstly, how does one define the set of “things that started to exist?” Secondly, how does one define the set of “things that did not start to exist?” How does one show that this second set can hypothetically contain more than one member? (this is necessary to avoid implicitly inserting the conclusion into the premise)

Completely irrelevant. One defines the set of things that began to exist as "things that began to exist. The set of things that did not begin to exist is defined as “things that had no beginning.” Possibly instead of “define,” you mean “how do you populate such a set?” But that is not relevant, if we can establish the first premise as more probable than not, we move on to the second, establishing that the universe began to exist. This is all the argument requires.

And at any rate, the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the whole KCA, but simply the first premise, “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” Maybe later we can start a thread to discuss the second premise of the argument.

 

[tonyrey]

The incontestable fact remains that without evidence that anything exists necessarily or that things have always existed it is reasonable to believe there is a Necessary Being.

 

[The_Exodus]

You are mistaken. What I presented is not an argument against God’s existence. It is an argument against this particular attempt to prove God’s existence. Maybe there can be a valid argument, starting from the properties of the universe, which would logically lead to God’s existence. I don’t think there is, but who knows? All I am saying is that this particular attempt fails.

In other words:

“I am just going to wave my hand at your criticisms, The Exodus.”

 

[Spock]

The causal principle holds that “every thing that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”

Sorry, you misquoted it. Correctly: “every thing that begins to exist has an EXTERNAL cause of its existence”. Also, causation is not necessarily bringing forth something, which has not existed before. A cue-stick hits a ball, which starts to move. That is also a causation of an event. So causal principle is not restricted to “things”, more correctly it means a causal chain, where something causes a change. Therefore the “free will” is correctly regarded as the beginning of a new causal chain, and as such an exception to the causal principle. An example: our hunger is caused by our biological setup. Our desire to eat is caused by this hunger. But, our decison to eat is not caused (not determined) by our desire. Influenced, yes, caused, not. As long as we are “free” to make the decision, we can decide not to eat.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You are not really saying that the universe just popped into existence of nothing, instead you are saying that is always existed “it did not come from anywhere…it just is.”

Again a minor correction. You use the word “always”, which is not implied. “Always” presupposes an external time, which is incorrect according to relativity. The phrase the “universe simply exists” does not imply anything else.

So you essentially accept this causal principle as it applies to the universe, you just question the idea that the universe had a beginning. So the next step of the argument would be to show that the universe had a beginning (a topic for another thread though, since I guess this thread is devoted to discussing the causal principle).

Well, we can go there, if you want. After all, that is the point of the whole conversation.

I agree that saying the universe just exists does not lead to a logical contradiction. But the fact that something is logically (by which we mean theoretically) conceivable, does not make it metaphysically (or “really”) possible or probable.

Please clarify what you mean by “metaphysically possible”, as opposed to “logically possible”. Last time I looked, these two expressions mean exactly the same: jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/intro/notes/necessity.html. For example a magnetic monopole is logically (or metaphysically) possible, but physically impossible. So, I need some clarification to understand your distinction.

Conservation laws do not support the idea the universe is uncaused for the simple reason that they are “physical” laws. They only operate once the universe and matter exists.

And so does the principle of causation. Causation is the physical interaction of physical particles, nothing else. If you say that the conservation laws only apply within the universe, then the principle of causation has the same restriction.

It is posible to offer arguments that the universe had a beginning (an actual infinite, like number of past events, is not constructable, therefore not actualize-able; Big Bang Cosmology and expansion of the universe) that would apply to the universe, but not God.

You mention a whole lot here. The Big Bang cosmological model does not stipulate that the universe has a “beginning”. It merely says that the current configuration of the universe started with a singularity. Our physics stops right there, and cheerfully admits ignorance. Anything and everything concerning the “before the singularity” is pure speculation. The same applies to the “infinite regress”. We simply cannot say anything about the singularity, or what was “before” it.

you also suggest that free will is an exception. Obviously if the physical universe and particles are all there is, then there is not free will by your logic here.

We don’t know if we do have true, libertarian, free will. It is a basic assumption. It cannot be proved of disproved.

But in free will, the mind, uncaused, acts. And what is more, the mind, uncaused, may act on physical matter.

1. You say that causation is a physical interaction of particles.
2. You believe in free will, that is to say, personal actions are uncaused.
3. If free will is uncaused, then my mind acts on the matter of my brain to bring about a desired result.
4. So you have a cause of a mind acting on matter in a causal relationship. This contradicts your statement that causation is the physical interaction of particles.

No, there is no contradiction, bacause all that takes place within your own body. The mind is the activity of the brain. The activity itself is produced by the physical interaction of neurons, which are also physical entities, yet, the activity itself is not “physical”. Another example: our leg muscles produce the activity of walking, yet the activity of walking is not a physical entity. The physical activity is there in the neurons, the nerve paths and the muscles.

Now, a true counter example would be the sheer thinking to make a physical change in something else, rather than your own body. It would be “telekinesis”, where the simple thought would bring forth a change (causation) in the external world. And so far there is no example of that happening. By merely “wishing” something to happen is fruitless.

 

[danserr]

Sorry, you misquoted it. Correctly: "every thing that begins to exist has an EXTERNAL cause of its existence

Actually it was deliberate. The word “external” added nothing. If something began to exist, it could not have caused itself, since this is metaphysically (and probably logically) impossible.

Again a minor correction. You use the word “always”, which is not implied. “Always” presupposes an external time, which is incorrect according to relativity. The phrase the “universe simply exists” does not imply anything else.

Very well, if you prefer, say instead, that you believe that the universe had no beginning. The point is still the same regarding the argument.

Please clarify what you mean by “metaphysically possible”, as opposed to “logically possible”. Last time I looked, these two expressions mean exactly the same

Logically possible means non-contradictory. A square-circle is logically impossible. A contradiction is logically impossible. On the other hand, metaphysically possible just means “really possible.” something might not entail a contradiction, but that does not mean it is really possible. There is no contradiction involved in saying that a raging tiger could appear from nothing next to you, but that doesn’t mean it is really possible.

And so does the principle of causation. Causation is the physical interaction of physical particles, nothing else. If you say that the conservation laws only apply within the universe, then the principle of causation has the same restriction.

Not at all. The laws of nature are physical laws, but the causal principle is a “meta-physical principle” It is concerned with being and existence, so it holds even if no universe exists.

You mention a whole lot here

I think we won’t get into the arguments for the beginning of the universe quite yet, this is enough to go on for now. possibly a new thread later though would be interesting.

As for free will. I admit I find you a bit unclear here. You seem to defend the existence of free will, and admit the mind may act on matter. I decide to eat a sandwich, my mind wills it, acts on the neurons in my brain to move my body in such a way as to obtain said delicious sandwich. But free will, in this sense seems to support the KCA rather than undermine it. Since only a personal agent may be un-caused (and I admit I remain a bit unclear on this issue for now), the universe is clearly not personal, even if free will was an exception, it would not apply to the universe. What is more, if the universe had an uncaused cause, then you actually seem to offer support for the idea that such a cause would be personal.

Also, I think, if you insisted, I could just say that I mean the causal principle in respect to things, and since the universe is a thing, it would apply to the universe.

 

[Pieman333272]

ps. I haven’t read Hawking’s book, or anything about it, so this is just a guess; but in claiming that “philosophy is dead,” is he not referring to the idea that science has rendered philosophy useless as a way of describing our world? This seems obvious to me - when did philosophy actually prove anything?

Wow. Wow. Have you ever actually read any metaphysics? Then you would know that’s not what philosophy was meant to do. Philosophy was never designed to answer “how” questions (the ancient philosophers who did both kinds had dual careers), it was meant to reflect on the world in which we live! Science has never rendered philosophy useless - name for me one occasion science has either answered or removed the need for an existential question. If you can’t, then your claim simply holds no credit. And the very atheism you hold so dearly was founded on nothing short of philosophy! And science really hasn’t done anything to political philosophy.

Philosophy simply hasn’t been touched by science, if anything, it’s been helped. Every person who says this knows nothing of philosophy’s actual purpose.

 

[wanstronian]

Wow. Wow. Have you ever actually read any metaphysics? Then you would know that’s not what philosophy was meant to do. Philosophy was never designed to answer “how” questions (the ancient philosophers who did both kinds had dual careers), it was meant to reflect on the world in which we live! Science has never rendered philosophy useless - name for me one occasion science has either answered or removed the need for an existential question. If you can’t, then your claim simply holds no credit. And the very atheism you hold so dearly was founded on nothing short of philosophy! And science really hasn’t done anything to political philosophy.

Philosophy simply hasn’t been touched by science, if anything, it’s been helped. Every person who says this knows nothing of philosophy’s actual purpose.

Fair enough, it was just a question, not a “claim.” Put words in my mouth, whydontcha.

What do you suppose Hawking meant?

 

[Pieman333272]

Fair enough, it was just a question, not a “claim.” Put words in my mouth, whydontcha.

What do you suppose Hawking meant?

I presume he meant that he wants science to answer both existential and factual questions, considering some of the questions he uses M-Theory to write on. However, he could have meant that existential questions have been rendered useless but are still a separate field, judging by a comment he makes on the history of philosophy in “A Brief History…”.

 

[Windfish]

A relevant link regarding the fallacy of composition:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/hume-cosmological-arguments-and-fallacy.html

One objection often raised against them is that they commit a fallacy of composition. In particular, it is claimed that they fallaciously infer from the premise that the various objects that make up the universe are contingent to the conclusion that the universe as a whole is contingent. What is true of the parts of a whole is not necessarily true of the whole itself: If each brick in a wall of Legos is an inch long, it doesn’t follow that the wall as a whole is an inch long. Similarly, even if each object in the universe is contingent, why suppose that the universe as a whole is?

I hope every Catholic here is familiar with Ed Feser. He’s brilliant. He helped me to see how most atheists (and most theists) have a strawman conception of the philosophical proofs for God’s existence. I went to every atheist site I could think of, and every single one of them failed to represent the arguments, which meant “their” refutations were flawed. The thing is, very few theistic sites got them right, either. Once you understand the arguments correctly, these objections melt away.

 

[danserr]

Windfish,
Thanks for an interesting link. Let me see if I apply it correctly to the KCA, the version of the cosmological argument that says the universe had a beginning.

The first premise, which this thread is discussing is “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” One reason in support of this is that the causal principle is continually affirmed in out experience. To which the skeptic argues that this commits the fallacy of composition, wrongly inferring that the whole is the same as the parts.

Fesar’s reply.
1). Not every inference from the part of the whole commits the composition fallacy. a). every lego is light in weight, therefore the lego structure is light in weight. b). Every lego is red, therefore the lego structure is red.
“a” commits the composition fallacy, “b” does not. why?

• it concerns the nature of the thing. The nature of weight is such that putting 2 things together of the same weight increases the weight. But the nature of color is such that putting 2 things together does not change the color. So which is the beginning of the universe more like?
• The universe is more like the example with color, because of the nature of causation. If every individual thing the begins has a cause, then why should putting them all together mean that they can suddenly be un-caused? That is simply the nature of causation. A group of caused things do not magically become un-caused simply by putting them all together. So the causal principle does not commit the composition fallacy because of the nature of causation and beginning of things.
  Is that a fair way to put it?

 

[wanstronian]

Windfish,
Thanks for an interesting link. Let me see if I apply it correctly to the KCA, the version of the cosmological argument that says the universe had a beginning.

The first premise, which this thread is discussing is “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” One reason in support of this is that the causal principle is continually affirmed in out experience. To which the skeptic argues that this commits the fallacy of composition, wrongly inferring that the whole is the same as the parts.

Fesar’s reply.
1). Not every inference from the part of the whole commits the composition fallacy. a). every lego is light in weight, therefore the lego structure is light in weight. b). Every lego is red, therefore the lego structure is red.
“a” commits the composition fallacy, “b” does not. why?

• it concerns the nature of the thing. The nature of weight is such that putting 2 things together of the same weight increases the weight. But the nature of color is such that putting 2 things together does not change the color. So which is the beginning of the universe more like?
• The universe is more like the example with color, because of the nature of causation. If every individual thing the begins has a cause, then why should putting them all together mean that they can suddenly be un-caused? That is simply the nature of causation. A group of caused things do not magically become un-caused simply by putting them all together. So the causal principle does not commit the composition fallacy because of the nature of causation and beginning of things.
  Is that a fair way to put it?

I hope the defence isn’t as lightweight as that! Simply claiming that the “nature” of causation is akin to that of colour is an arbitrary claim. Why is it like colour? You need to define your evaluation criteria - it’s not enough to say, “why should putting them together suddenly mean they are un-caused?” - that just adds a new fallacy. With Lego bricks, we can devise an experiment to test the nature of the composite. What’s your equivalent experiment for the Universe?

If this really is Feser’s defence (I haven’t read him, although I’ll have a look on the web), then the atheist rebuttals of the KCA are untroubled.

 

[tonyrey]

There are four possibilities:

1. A Being has always existed
2. A Being appeared spontaneously
3. Beings have always existed
4. Beings have appeared spontaneously

#3 and #4 infringe the principle of economy. Since we have no evidence that #2 has ever occurred #1 is the most reasonable explanation.

That being must also be an adequate cause of everything that has existed.

 

[danserr]

I hope the defence isn’t as lightweight as that! Simply claiming that the “nature” of causation is akin to that of colour is an arbitrary claim. Why is it like colour? You need to define your evaluation criteria - it’s not enough to say, “why should putting them together suddenly mean they are un-caused?” - that just adds a new fallacy. With Lego bricks, we can devise an experiment to test the nature of the composite. What’s your equivalent experiment for the Universe?

If this really is Feser’s defence (I haven’t read him, although I’ll have a look on the web), then the atheist rebuttals of the KCA are untroubled.

Nonsense. The nature of color is such that placing two things of the same color together does not change them. The nature of weight is such that placing two things of the same weight together does change the weight of the whole. Why? That is simply the nature of weight and the nature of color. So what, then is the case as this applies to causation? Surely, it is more like the case of color. No experiment is necessary because we know about the nature of the thing. If every single thing in our experience and the universe is caused why should we be forced to stop such reasoning when we get to the whole? This seems a perfectly natural extension of such reasoning and, Fesar remarks (if I read him right), then burden is on the skeptic to show that each of these things, caused, put together, suddenly become caused. (He made the point in respect to the PSR, but it seems effective here too).

-Are you seriously suggesting that putting two caused things together makes them uncaused? This seems more like a desperate attempt to escape the force of the argument than anything else.

 

[Spock]

Actually it was deliberate. The word “external” added nothing. If something began to exist, it could not have caused itself, since this is metaphysically (and probably logically) impossible.

I see no contradiction. Maybe you could elaborate.

Very well, if you prefer, say instead, that you believe that the universe had no beginning. The point is still the same regarding the argument.

What point? All I said that “something simply exists”.

Logically possible means non-contradictory. A square-circle is logically impossible. A contradiction is logically impossible. On the other hand, metaphysically possible just means “really possible.” something might not entail a contradiction, but that does not mean it is really possible. There is no contradiction involved in saying that a raging tiger could appear from nothing next to you, but that doesn’t mean it is really possible.

What is “really possible”? You need to go further. If something is logically possible, then there is a “possible world”, in which it manifests itself.

Not at all. The laws of nature are physical laws, but the causal principle is a “meta-physical principle” It is concerned with being and existence, so it holds even if no universe exists.

The metaphysical principles are abstractions of physical observations - if they are to be taken seriously. I don’t accept the idea of “abstract objects”. If there is no universe, there are no “metaphysical principles”.

As for free will. I admit I find you a bit unclear here. You seem to defend the existence of free will, and admit the mind may act on matter. I decide to eat a sandwich, my mind wills it, acts on the neurons in my brain to move my body in such a way as to obtain said delicious sandwich. But free will, in this sense seems to support the KCA rather than undermine it. Since only a personal agent may be un-caused (and I admit I remain a bit unclear on this issue for now), the universe is clearly not personal, even if free will was an exception, it would not apply to the universe. What is more, if the universe had an uncaused cause, then you actually seem to offer support for the idea that such a cause would be personal.

Don’t read more into it, than what I said: Free will (if exists) proves that there are new, uncaused causal chains, thus undermining and disproving the principle of general causality. We can talk about its other corollaries later.

Also, I think, if you insisted, I could just say that I mean the causal principle in respect to things, and since the universe is a thing, it would apply to the universe.

Sigh. The universe is not a thing, it is a collection of things. Saying otherwise will not make a difference.

 

[Spock]

-Are you seriously suggesting that putting two caused things together makes them uncaused?

No one says that. What we say that the concept of “causality” cannot even be defined for a collection.

Take a “car” and a “solar flare”. The “car” existence is caused my factors, the desire of the people who conceived it, the desire of the people to manufacture it, etc, etc… There is no single causative factor for the existence of the car. The “solar flare” is caused by the physical activities of the Sun. Take the collection A = {car, solar flare}. The question of “what caused collection A?” is simply nonsensical.