First Cause and common refutations

[warpspeedpetey]

Pardon the barge-in, but, five or six to one is tough odds even for someone who has warpspeed!
jd

i wonder where oh where the erstwhile MindoverMatter is today, he would hardly accept an insult to Aquinas.

i suppose if they beat up on us too much we can go crying to MoM!

 

[Spock]

so in a sense if you have seen trillions of white swans, you need a pretty good reason to say that the next swan you see will be black.

The point is that there is no proof that causality is necessary. It is observed many times, but that is not a proof that there are no exceptions.

funny enough i actually have an argument from free will for the existence of G-d.

but from a purely deterministic empirical view of the matter, those decisions are not uncaused.

now i dont believe that myself, but if we believe only in a purely deterministic universe with no other (name removed by moderator)uts, then those interactions dont escape causality either.

Right. If the universe is fully deterministic (The obsolete Newtonian clockwork model) then there is an uninterrupted causal chain, and there is no free will.

If there is true, libertarian free will, then each time a free decision is made, a new causal chain starts. In other words, an uncaused event occurred.

i dont know where you are getting the idea of ‘collection’ from

The concept of a collection is very old and useful. It means the conglomerate of different objects. The universe is an example. And there is no way to define a “cause” for collections.

Just like space and time are not absolute categories, and it is nonsensical to speak of “outside” the universe, or speak of “before” the universe, it is just as nonsensical to speak of “causation” outside the universe.

 

[Spock]

I would answer that there are no “independent causal chains” of the type and species you are herein suggesting. Every “independent causal chain” can be thought through and found to have been an effect that goes back to a previous singular cause, which was an effect, etc. That being said, since the “look-back” cannot go back to infinity, for a number of really valid reasons, we ultimately come to exactly that: an ultimate First Cause.

In other words, you deny the existence of a free will. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church? Just curious.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The point is that there is no proof that causality is necessary. It is observed many times, but that is not a proof

that there are no exceptions.

there is no proof that there are no exceptions to gravity, yet we dont step off of buildings.

point being when something is so tested, you need a pretty good reason to say that it will be wrong.

i see no reason to doubt cuasality without some very strong evidence in this regard.

do you have any evidence or reason to doubt causality?

Right. If the universe is fully deterministic (The obsolete Newtonian clockwork model) then there is an uninterrupted causal chain, and there is no free will.

 

[Spock]

i see no reason to doubt cuasality without some very strong evidence in this regard.

do you have any evidence or reason to doubt causality?

Yes, our freedom to choose without being determined.

yet that decision is made for a reason, it still has a cause. one doesnt make a decision for kicks, ther are antecedents to that decision.

Sometimes we do. When I looked into the refrigerator this morning, I saw several different option what to eat for breakfast. I made one random choice, which was not determined by anything, except my whim. And my whim was not determined by anything at all.

i wonder why you think a fully deterministic universe is obsolete? i assume you are referencing QM. if so which interpretation?

The interpretations are irrelevant. QM is a set of mathematical equations, which work quite well. To interpret them is just our desire to visualize them in some common language format, to find an analogy within the macro world. It is not necessary for the math to work.

i understand what it means, im not sure why you are applying it to what, according to physicists was a singularity?

You assert that causality is “global”, it pertains to everything. Yet there is no way to define causality for collections of objects. The universe is a collection of objects. Therefore there is no way to define causality for the universe.

i dont see what makes causation nonsensical when spoken of as “outside the universe”

further, im not sure there is such a thing as outside the universe, physically.

Great. Then define it. Especially since the word: “universe” is defined as everything there is.

Listen. You have no problem with uncaused causative agents. You believe that God is one. Therefore causation is not universal - even by you.

 

[JDaniel]

In other words, you deny the existence of a free will. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church? Just curious.

You are strawmanning my argument. Nowhere do I deny free will.

If you believe that I am, please tell me how. Perhaps I can convince you otherwise.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, our freedom to choose without being determined.

re-he-he-he-heally? (in my best jim carey impression)

pick your poison between hard determinism and libertarianism, i think your going to have a very hard time proving that.

do you have any reason to believe that your exercising true free will?

Sometimes we do. When I looked into the refrigerator this morning, I saw several different option what to eat for breakfast. I made one random choice, which was not determined by anything, except my whim. And my whim was not determined by anything at all.

 

[JDaniel]

There are many hypotheses for the cause of the big bang. There is no evidence for any of them. If you can provide some evidence to favour one hypothesis over the rest, I would be keen to look at it.

Yes. The explanation is within the field of quantum physics. You can find it if you look. Here is an interesting article which discusses this same issue.

science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=142

I have read this article. It is more of the same: assertion upon assertion without reason or proof.

In one place, the way the authors argue is like this: “We think that you will find that you will think this way in the future, therefore, that argument is refuted.”

Here is their summation:
“The question “What caused the beginning of the universe?” is therefore redundant and meaningless because causation doesn’t apply to the beginning. The anthropic myth is thus dispelled.”

In another place, they talk about using the subject of “photons”, then state something about “molecules”, intermixing them in their argument as though they were the same. I am guessing that they did this because we can actually “see” many molecules.

It junk metaphysics - and, I use that word very loosely as regards these authors.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have read this article. It is more of the same: assertion upon assertion without reason or proof.

In one place, the way the authors argue is like this: “We think that you will find that you will think this way in the future, therefore, that argument is refuted.”

Here is their summation:
“The question “What caused the beginning of the universe?” is therefore redundant and meaningless because causation doesn’t apply to the beginning. The anthropic myth is thus dispelled.”

In another place, they talk about using the subject of “photons”, then state something about “molecules”, intermixing them in their argument as though they were the same. I am guessing that they did this because we can actually “see” many molecules.

It junk metaphysics - and, I use that word very loosely as regards these authors.

jd

is it more metaphysics of quality?

 

[JDaniel]

is it more metaphysics of quality?

No, it’s a scholarly-toned rehash of the same old arguments - nothing new. They imply - no, they postulate - uncaused causation from known thermodynamic explanations of structures. Of course, they don’t care that a “postulate” is not a proof, nor is it empirical evidence.

It is short, so you should read it. I’d actually like to know what you think about it.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Existence caused the universe. Time cannot logically be the cause, since it is time that we are trying to explain. Therefore Existence transcends time, and is the cause of it. More importantly, Existence is not physical. And since there is no physical events before time, an eternal expression of creativity from within the nature that is existence, is the only explanation. In other words, Existence has a will and mind that intends to share its nature of existing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, it’s a scholarly-toned rehash of the same old arguments - nothing new. They imply - no, they postulate - uncaused causation from known thermodynamic explanations of structures. Of course, they don’t care that a “postulate” is not a proof, nor is it empirical evidence.

It is short, so you should read it. I’d actually like to know what you think about it.

jd

well, unfortunately you are right, same arguments. i figured they would be,

so many unfounded assumptions, and appeals to QM it makes me laugh, but a lot of people would take it seriously.

another fancy way to claim that something can come from nothing, it has no supporting arguements, in fact if it did mention VP, it would expose itself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Existence caused the universe. Time cannot logically be the cause, since it is time that we are trying to explain. Therefore Existence transcends time, and is the cause of it. More importantly, Existence is not physical. And since there is no physical events before time, an eternal expression of creativity from within the nature that is existence, is the only explanation. In other words, Existence has a will and mind that intends to share its nature of existing.

welcome to the rodeo cowboy!

 

[Spock]

You are strawmanning my argument. Nowhere do I deny free will.

If you believe that I am, please tell me how. Perhaps I can convince you otherwise.

I merely asked you a question, and you graciously responded. So you also believe (like I do) that we are free agents, who can make free decisions. How do you reconcile this with your prior statement hat there are no new causative chains?

If a decision is caused, it cannot be called “free”. If a decision is free it cannot be caused. These two possibilities are contradictory.

If there are uncaused, free decisions, then causality is not global. That is all there is to it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If there are uncaused, free decisions, then causality is not global. That is all there is to it.

Intentions and choices are not natural causes. Absolutely correct. But thats the whole point. The only other kind of cause that could have possibly caused the universe is a personal will of some kind.

Well done!!!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Spock. This is the captain speaking. The potentiality for change cannot come out of nothing. Things don’t just happen for no reason. And yet you are trying to sneak in this logical fallacy in various different disguises. Freewill obviously cannot be a natural event, since it is not caused by preceding effects, even though it is certainly influenced. And since the potentiality for change cannot just come out of no where, it must be the case that we have a transcendent aspect to our being; since our choices are not determined by physical causes. Yet you will probably deny this and make another argument claiming that something can come out of nothing.

Its a shame. You just manage to crash the "Enterprise Z"with such a bogus claim. Now there are no more letters in the alphabet. And it doesn’t matter how much you disguise it, its going to keep crashing because your arguments are all reliant upon the logically impossible.

The problem with you, is that you apply logic when you want to.
Thats why i don’t think that you should call yourself captain spock. He would immediately expose you as illogical.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Spock. This is the captain speaking.

somehow i can hear this statement in eminems voice followed by the verbal squelch and’guess whos back? back again?’

 

[Spock]

pick your poison between hard determinism and libertarianism, i think your going to have a very hard time proving that.

I pick libertariansm. There is no way to prove either that true, libertarian free will exists, or that it does not.

It would require to take a snapshot of the universe, store it somewhere “outside”, rewind the universe to a prior state, let it progress to the time the snapshot was taken, and compare the two results.

Nevertheless, the assumption that true libertarian free will exists is mirrored in both secular and Christian worldviews.

If that is the case, then all freely made decisions start a new, uncaused causative chain, therefore causation is not global.

the BB started as a singularity, smaller than a planck length. so the whole collection of objects deal is denied by accepted physics.

Not really. The BB theory merely states that the observed universe seems to be expanding from a common starting point. Nowhere does it make a claim about the whole universe. Why should we believe that the “observed” universe is all there is? Why should the universe be exactly as large as our current observation technology is able to reach?

thats not the definition of ‘universe’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

most definitions use the the everything that physically exists, or everything that came from the big bang.

Some do, not all. We shall not have a quarrel over this. I prefer the definition which is congruent with the current usage of the word: “everything that exists”.

It can be subdivided into physical and non-physical parts. The physical is the collection (again that word) of all the ontological objects, while the non-physical would be the collection of the attributes of the ontological objects and their reflections in the realm of concepts and ideas made by intelliegent beings (if any).

If you would prefer a different way of putting it, be my guest.

im a pretty much a rational materialist, it throws a lot of atheists off.

No kidding. You may characterize yourself in any way you want to, but the commonly accepted meaning of “materialist” does not jive with what you expose.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If there are uncaused, free decisions, then causality is not global. That is all there is to it.

how exactly are you going to substantiate these ‘uncaused free decisions’?

what argument or evidence do you have to support it?

 

[Spock]

Intentions and choices are not natural causes. Absolutely correct. But thats the whole point. The only other kind of cause that could have possibly caused the universe is a personal will of some kind.

Well done!!!

You miss the point. If there are uncaused causative chains, then the original assertion (there must be a cause for everything within the physical universe) is invalid.

You would have to prove (not just assert) that the only exceptions to causation are the free, volitional choices made by intelligent beings.