First Cause and common refutations

[MindOverMatter]

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

I don’t have to prove anything. I believe firmly in logic, and it is evident to me that in order for something to be true, such a truth must follow logically and necessarily from its premise, without contradicting itself. Hence; sufficient causality. It is you who is claiming that something can come out of nothing by itself.

But any good thinker would know that nothing is not a being, but rather is a negation of being. Thus there is no such thing as nothing in order that anything can come out of it. And to speak out otherwise is to make an absurd claim. It is logically impossible that anything like that could happen in reality since it is violating the laws of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. And so, there is no logical reason why i should accept anything that you are claiming to be true. In fact i would be committing intellectual suicide, since everything you are saying is going against logic and experience.

 

[Spock]

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

what argument or evidence do you have to support it?

Either you accept that we have true free will or you do not. Up to you. If there is free will, then new causative chains start every time we make a free decision. If there is no free will, we are just trains on tracks, and we have no responsibility for our actions. Pick your choice. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Well, let’s take a look at this. Do you think that ideas - ideation - are/is uncaused? I don’t see how. Decisions are always “caused”. There’s always an impetus behind every decision.

The parameters involved are motive. The conceptualized effects of choosing this or that course of action, or inaction, are motive. Such impetuses can come from real events, such as, I might scream at myself, “Get your stupid hand off of that hot stove!” Or, they might come from other thought(s), such as, “I once put my hand on a stove that was hot. Wasn’t my cup of tea. That stove might be hot, so, I’d better not place my hand on it just yet.”

In both of the latter cases, the choices were “free”. I could have left my hand on the hot stove, and, on the other, I could have ignored my own warning. Do you see a new causative chain anywhere herein?

Regarding “thought”: there are those who think that philosophical, and, in certain ways, scientific (in a broad sense of that word) thoughts are able to produce “new” ideas, new relationalities, and new conundrums. But, are they “new”, in the sense that there are no vestiges of past thoughts in either of them, or involved in arriving at them?

Do you have an example of a free, uncaused thought in mind?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

i need something more than common acceptance to throw causality out the window.

provide some evidence or arguement that we may examine.

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?

its called the light horizon, distance observed is a matter of the speed of light. no one is claiming that is the exact size of the universe.

but the rate of expansion and the time since the BB yield a theoretical maximum current size, of course that is always increasing at an accelerating rate.

are you claiming that there are multiple simultaneous BB’s?

because everything we can observe, and predict to be within the maximum current radius came from the BB, as far as we know.

either i dont understand this argument or your reaching a little here.

maybe a clarification would help.

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”.

ok, you use it the way you wish. and i will use it as below.

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.

ok i will simply say the physical or observed universe, in which i mean things having dimension, and other commonly held physical qaulities in any combination i.e. mass, etc

as opposed to things that have no dimension, or physical qualities, which i will simply refer to as non-physical.

philosophical definitions applied to physical phenomenon are definitley unwieldy.

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.

ok

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Either you accept that we have true free will or you do not. Up to you. If there is free will, then new causative chains start every time we make a free decision. If there is no free will, we are just trains on tracks, and we have no responsibility for our actions.

if you care to use it as a support in an argument for first cause, then you need some evidence or argument to support it.

if you dont have one thats ok, simply dont use free will as an argument against causality.

take a different tact.

Pick your choice. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

i always thought that saying was rather odd, how can i eat my cake if i dont have it? and if i have it, why then could i not eat it?

thats neither here nor there, but everytime i hear that i suspect i am missing something

 

[JDaniel]

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.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see how that is possible. There must be motive forces, or, impetuses for any decisions. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, even the choices before us produce motive forces.

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?

I can’t agree with this: we have telescopes that “claim” to be able to “see” the edge of the universe. That’s where black holes are in abundance, along with dark matter and dark energy.

In fact, the prevalent depiction of the universe is that it is sort of a flattened bell shape.

Snip . . .

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.

Why must the “non-physical” be merely a “collection of attributes”? Are you asserting that the only exigencies that are non-physical are “ideas”?

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

thats neither here nor there, but everytime i hear that i suspect i am missing something

I use to think that the atheists on this forum were in denial of the proofs for God. But now I’m not so sure. I think that some of these guys genuinely are incapable of thinking logically. Its like their brain in encased in a titanium volt with a one way speaker system. I use to be in their shoes, so i try to understand. But i always end up getting frustrated because it really is so simple.

Is that too harsh of an evaluation?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I use to think that the atheists on this forum were in denial of the proofs for God. But now I’m not so sure. I think that some of these guys genuinely are incapable of thinking logically. Its like their brain in encased in a titanium volt with a one way speaker system. I use to be in their shoes, so i try to understand. But i always end up getting frustrated because it really is so simple.

Is that too harsh of an evaluation?

for me, i was simply a little empirical contrarian in my youth, i suspect that still of some of the younger, more rash posters,

in general they are just exposed to what the educational system and the popular media put out.

it sounds very convincing until exposed to a little rational scepticism.

i think maybe they have an expectation for the truth to be complicated, and require some deep intellectualism. the simplicity of it throws them off.

oh well, G-d saves, petey dont
in s

 

[JustHuman]

I use to think that the atheists on this forum were in denial of the proofs for God. But now I’m not so sure. I think that some of these guys genuinely are incapable of thinking logically. Its like their brain in encased in a titanium volt with a one way speaker system. I use to be in their shoes, so i try to understand. But i always end up getting frustrated because it really is so simple.

Is that too harsh of an evaluation?

You know, we really do understand where you’re coming from. Most of us who are naturalists once found the same arguments to be convincing. We don’t any more. Is it really so impossible to think that other people might understand what you believe, but reject it because it doesn’t make sense to them?

I can follow and agree with most of the first cause arguments, up until the point where it is claimed that the cause of the universe had to have an intelligence of some sort. I understand why this is a necessary claim for Christians, but it’s I no longer see why this must be the case.

If the universe really does require a cause (which I don’t think is necessarily true, but I see no point arguing it), why must the cause be intelligent?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know, we really do understand where you’re coming from.

if you did you wouldn’t be a naturalist

Most of us who are naturalists once found the same arguments to be convincing. We don’t any more.

so now you believe that something can come from nothing? youre telling us that you used to believe that nothing comes from nothing, but now, you believe that something can come from nothing?

Is it really so impossible to think that other people might understand what you believe, but reject it because it doesn’t make sense to them?

i doubt many people understand the argument swell, i have been at it for a couple decades now, and i have a hard time following him

I can follow and agree with most of the first cause arguments, up until the point where it is claimed that the cause of the universe had to have an intelligence of some sort. I understand why this is a necessary claim for Christians, but it’s I no longer see why this must be the case.

really? id be happy to explain, that it cant reasonably be a random act, without needing more faith than a religion would ever require of you.

If the universe really does require a cause (which I don’t think is necessarily true, but I see no point arguing it), why must the cause be intelligent?

because a random act has exactly 1:infinity odds of creating any particular universe. that is literally as close to impossible as you can get without being literally impossible.

takes alot of faith to believe in that.

meanwhile this particular universe could easily be chosen by an indepoendent actor.

now, why do you think the universe doesnt need a cause? i suspect you know it does, but you dont want to have to prove that, because you think the jump to intelligence is an easier target, trust me its not.

 

[JustHuman]

I think it’s possible the universe may have had a cause. I choose to call the cause of the universe “The cause of the universe”, because I find labeling it anything else to be disingenuous.

“because a random act has exactly 1:infinity odds of creating any particular universe. that is literally as close to impossible as you can get without being literally impossible.”

Obviously, if the universe needed a previous cause, that cause was sufficient to create the universe. If what you’re saying is that the odds of the universe turning out the way it is is incredibly small… Well maybe that’s true. We just don’t know if this is the only possible universe, or if it could’ve turned out differently. I’m sure that if puddles could think, each one would marvel that against all odds, their little indentation happened to fit them perfectly. As products of the universe, it doesn’t surprise me that against all odds, I find myself in this particular universe.

“so now you believe that something can come from nothing? youre telling us that you used to believe that nothing comes from nothing, but now, you believe that something can come from nothing?”

Actually, I never claimed that something comes from nothing. I suppose that’s an easy argument to refute, but I’ve never claimed this, nor have I ever seen anyone else claim this. What I do believe, is that it’s possible the universe may have required a cause. Or, it’s possible that the question is meaningless. I don’t think there was ever a time that there was “nothing” and suddenly, the universe comes into being. If time is a function of the universe, there is no before the universe, rendering the proposition of the universe “coming out of” nothing meaningless.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think it’s possible the universe may have had a cause. I choose to call the cause of the universe “The cause of the universe”, because I find labeling it anything else to be disingenuous.

why? if you aproach the evidence rationally, you can come to a conclusion. its only disingenuous if your saying something you cant back up.

“because a random act has exactly 1:infinity odds of creating any particular universe. that is literally as close to impossible as you can get without being literally impossible.”

Obviously, if the universe needed a previous cause, that cause was sufficient to create the universe. If what you’re saying is that the odds of the universe turning out the way it is is incredibly small… Well maybe that’s true. We just don’t know if this is the only possible universe, or if it could’ve turned out differently.

according to hawking there are an infinite number of universes.

I’m sure that if puddles could think, each one would marvel that against all odds, their little indentation happened to fit them perfectly. As products of the universe, it doesn’t surprise me that against all odds, I find myself in this particular universe.

to use your analogy, the suprise is that there is any potholes, indentations, or puddles at all. why should there be any universe, much less this one, considering the odds.

its wouldn’t matter if the universe had life at all, im not making the protestant, creationism argument

“so now you believe that something can come from nothing? youre telling us that you used to believe that nothing comes from nothing, but now, you believe that something can come from nothing?”

Actually, I never claimed that something comes from nothing. I suppose that’s an easy argument to refute, but I’ve never claimed this, nor have I ever seen anyone else claim this. What I do believe, is that it’s possible the universe may have required a cause. Or, it’s possible that the question is meaningless. I don’t think there was ever a time that there was “nothing” and suddenly, the universe comes into being.

eternal matter violates the second law of thermodynamics.

If time is a function of the universe, there is no before the universe, rendering the proposition of the universe “coming out of” nothing meaningless.

if there was nothing before the universe, there could be nothing now, regardless of time.

thats just another argument saying the universe was uncaused. or appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

 

[JustHuman]

“*why? if you aproach the evidence rationally, you can come to a conclusion. its only disingenuous if your saying something you cant back up. *”

Maybe so. I’ve never seen a compelling argument for why the first cause, should it exist, needs to be intelligent. If I see something sensible, of course I will accept it. Until I see such evidence, I’m going to call the cause of the universe… The cause of the universe… and not add attributes I can’t prove it has.

“*to use your analogy, the suprise is that there is any potholes, indentations, or puddles at all. why should there be any universe, much less this one, considering the odds.
*”

Even if we appeal to gods, we can still ask why everything exists at all. Eventually we must accept that the sum of all existence–whatever it consists of… Just IS. If the true sum of all existence happens to be the known universe, plus an outside cause that happens to be self-aware… we still must simply accept that this sum of all existence… just is! There is no reason or purpose we can appeal to that exists outside of the sum of existence.

What are these “odds” we’re talking about? For the universe, we have a sample size of one. Based on a sample of one, we can’t conclude how likely the universe is. As for Hawking… I’ve never heard him claim emphatically that there is more than one universe. He may have said it’s possible–of course it is. He’s not really relevant to this conversation, but at least you could back that up with sources.

“eternal matter violates the second law of thermodynamics.”

If I were to propose that the universe exististed for an infinite period of time, then yes, I’d run into trouble with thermodynamics, as given an infinite period of time, entropy would’ve been maximized an infinite time ago.

Fortunately, I’ve never proposed this, nor have I ever claimed that “nothing produces something”. What I think is quite reasonable, is that the universe may have existed over ALL time. This is quite different than claiming the universe existed for an infinite period of time. Once agian, if time ceases to have meaning outside of the universe, there was no period of time where the universe “appeared out of nowhere”.

It’s a complete straw man I regrettably see emerge time and again to assert that naturalists believe the universe emerged out of nothing… It’s nonsense. We don’t believe it. Neither do you. It’s an easy argument to refute, but until we actually claim it, please move on to more productive arguments.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“*why? if you aproach the evidence rationally, you can come to a conclusion. its only disingenuous if your saying something you cant back up. *”

Maybe so. I’ve never seen a compelling argument for why the first cause, should it exist, needs to be intelligent. If I see something sensible, of course I will accept it. Until I see such evidence, I’m going to call the cause of the universe… The cause of the universe… and not add attributes I can’t prove it has.

the qoute button is the one on the left side of the hash marks

do you want the argument that jumps from first cause to independent actor, or the one that jumps from independent actor to Christain G-d?

frankly i dont care to give either until we acknowledge first cause.

id hate to do the work only to have you later reject it on the basis that you arent sure about first cause.

“*to use your analogy, the suprise is that there is any potholes, indentations, or puddles at all. why should there be any universe, much less this one, considering the odds.
*”

Even if we appeal to gods, we can still ask why everything exists at all. Eventually we must accept that the sum of all existence–whatever it consists of… Just IS
If the true sum of all existence happens to be the known universe, plus an outside cause that happens to be self-aware… we still must simply accept that this sum of all existence… just is! There is no reason or purpose we can appeal to that exists outside of the sum of existence.

i haven’t appealed to G-d yet, but it seems like your saying that we shouldn’t bother to explore the reason we ‘just is’
knowledge progresses from exploration. i wouldn’t stifle my curiosity if i could, and niether should anyone else

further, as first cause is non-physical, prepositions indicating position, would seem pointless

What are these “odds” we’re talking about? For the universe, we have a sample size of one. Based on a sample of one, we can’t conclude how likely the universe is. As for Hawking… I’ve never heard him claim emphatically that there is more than one universe. He may have said it’s possible–of course it is. He’s not really relevant to this conversation, but at least you could back that up with sources.

its in the wave function equations. used to determine the liklehood of this universe, unfortunately its only if there is a physical system for that wave function to describe.

further, as physical constants are seem infinitely variable, at least in QM, then i dont see any restrictions on what constitutes a reasonable universe.

“eternal matter violates the second law of thermodynamics.”

If I were to propose that the universe exististed for an infinite period of time, then yes, I’d run into trouble with thermodynamics, as given an infinite period of time, entropy would’ve been maximized an infinite time ago.

ok

Fortunately, I’ve never proposed this, nor have I ever claimed that “nothing produces something”. What I think is quite reasonable, is that the universe may have existed over ALL time. This is quite different than claiming the universe existed for an infinite period of time. Once agian, if time ceases to have meaning outside of the universe, there was no period of time where the universe “appeared out of nowhere”.

once again, if there was nothing preceding the universe, then there could be nothing now.

if the universe, and time suddenly began then that is the same as saying that they came from nothing and were uncaused

there was nothing, as in nothing whatsoever, then there was a big bang for no reason, and with no cause.

but thats ok because time didn’t start until the big bang.

its still the something from nothing argument with an excuse to allow it, the absence of time.

how does this not look like an argument that the universe just came into being for no reason?

further, other than semantics of language, why would causality be time contingent?

It’s a complete straw man I regrettably see emerge time and again to assert that naturalists believe the universe emerged out of nothing… It’s nonsense. We don’t believe it. Neither do you. It’s an easy argument to refute, but until we actually claim it, please move on to more productive arguments.

i think you are claiming it intentionally or not, the difference is that you are saying that its ok if time wasn’t operative

 

[JDaniel]

You know, we really do understand where you’re coming from. Most of us who are naturalists once found the same arguments to be convincing. We don’t any more. Is it really so impossible to think that other people might understand what you believe, but reject it because it doesn’t make sense to them?

I can follow and agree with most of the first cause arguments, up until the point where it is claimed that the cause of the universe had to have an intelligence of some sort. I understand why this is a necessary claim for Christians, but it’s I no longer see why this must be the case.

If the universe really does require a cause (which I don’t think is necessarily true, but I see no point arguing it), why must the cause be intelligent?

May I ask you how old you are? You can tell the truth as we are all incognito here.

jd

 

[Spock]

I’m sorry, I just don’t see how that is possible. There must be motive forces, or, impetuses for any decisions. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, even the choices before us produce motive forces.

We may be talking past each other. Taking a previous example of having breakfast. There is a causative factor: being hungry. There is a limiting factor: whatever happens to be available. There is an influencing factor: what I happen to prefer at the time. And there is a volitional, uncaused factor: what I actually choose.

Our chocies are not “catholic” they are limited, and influenced by outside factors. But when push comes to shove, there is the volitional factor, which is limited and influenced, but not determined - IF we have libertarian free will. Causation means determinism. If there is no determinism, there is no causation.

I can’t agree with this: we have telescopes that “claim” to be able to “see” the edge of the universe. That’s where black holes are in abundance, along with dark matter and dark energy.

It is possible that our current technology is the “best” possible, that we already can see the whole universe. I would not bet on it. But, be as it may, it is unproven (and for me unlikely) that we can see “everything” and therefore the BB is the final word in cosmology.

Why must the “non-physical” be merely a “collection of attributes”? Are you asserting that the only exigencies that are non-physical are “ideas”?

Do you know of any other kinds? I don’t.