First-Cause Argument for Existence of God

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

i’m not sure what this has to do with anything. if the universe has always existed, then, by definition, an infinite amount of time has already passed.

in which case, the series of temporal events is, by definition, divergent.

By definition?? Whose definition?
john doran:

perhaps. but even if it is meaningless to ask what is temporally prior to the big bang, it is certainly not meaningless to ask what is causally prior to the big bang.

unless you can prove that temporal priority and causal priority are identical…

you’re right, of course - i should have said that an entailment relation would need to be demonstrated.

Well, time happens to be unidirectional. If the cause would follow the affected event (in time) we would see a “grandfather’s paradox”, in other words: a logical contradiction. Therefore the cause must either predate the event or be simultaneous with it. Since the speed of light (in vacuum) is natural barrier to cause-effect relationships, the case must predate the affected event. Therefore a causally prior event would also entail a temporally prior relationship. Q.E.D.

 

[PLP]

Ghosty:

PLP: It seems that you aren’t following the logic of martino’s original statement all the way through: if something exists in its own essence, it is an “existing thing” by definition and never a “potentially existing thing”, then it must exist. We can conceive of an “existing thing”, but that conception is not the existing thing because our conception is caused by our minds, which are themselves caused, and so on and so forth.

Essentialism is itself a controversial philosophical position. I subscribe to a very different account of “essence” than traditionally big-e Essentiallist philosophy. I’m more persuaded to Satre’s (?) position that existence precedes essence.

I subscribe to the view that the essential properties of a thing are just those properties by virtue of which we assign the thing to a class. In keeping with Kant’s argument, I don’t view existence as a property; existence precedes essence, it precedes properties. Nonexistent thing don’t just lack the property of existence, there is nothing there to have or even lack any properties.

I have to leave now to go out to dinner with my son. Like I said earlier, I’m about 1/3 of the way through a more thorough exposition on First Cause arguments; I hope to finish and post it tomorrow or Thursday, as time permits.

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

I’m curious what some examples of such things would be - nonmaterial things which do not depend on the human mind for existence.

Forms. For example, a circle. If the circle did not exist, then matter could not take on the form of a circle, nor could someone think about a circle or the pi ratio. The existence of the non-material circle came beforehand. The same could be said for any geometric shape.

Another example would be the number of possible combinations in a rubik’s cube.

Anything that could potentially be manifested in the physical universe, but which has not yet actually happened.

Certain abstract mathematical theories have only recently been discovered, but they existed before anyone ever thought of them.

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

Agreed. Matter and energy cannot think.

Why?

Didn’t you already answer this?

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser
Now, it would be wrong to say that these things think. They might indeed provide the possibility for thought, by allowing for that particular arrangement of matter which generates thought, but they themselves would not exemplify that sort of arrangement and hence would not think.

You recognize already that matter and energy cannot think for themselves.

However, let me use this example to underscore the fact that combining things in a mix is not the same as combining them into a new compound. So the new compound is more than just the mix of its components. How is that, except that there is more to existence than just the initial components? Something moved it into becoming combined that way…

hurst

 

[hurst]

“Nothing can come from total nothingness.”

Hurst: is this logically equivalent to the statement “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”? I’ve got a strong suspicion that it is, but it would be easier if you admitted it than for me to present an argument (which could take a while).

Definitely not the same!

The premise I make is more encompassing and addresses the misleading assumption made in the statement “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”.

In considering existence, should one assume and imagine that there always was “total nothingness” from which we should envision things began to exist? Does it not rather make no sense? Nothing can come from total nothingness.

But we sense that there is not total nothingness right now. So there never could have been total nothingness. Instead, there must have always been “something”, and this something is what we subsist in, exist in, begin in, and be in. Yet, we sense many things that have not always been. They are distinct from the somethingness that must have always been. Now we can see more clearly what “God” has to be referring to, and what it “means” to be created. It is a mystery exposed to us in our natural understanding, but to go farther in knowing “God” requires faith. But even so, it is based on the certainty of this natural knowledge regarding existence.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

By definition?? Whose definition?

if something has always existed, or has existed forever, then it has existed for an infinite period of time.

look, either the universe has existed for a finite period of time, or it hasn’t. if it has, then it came into existence, along with time, and requires a cause.

if it has existed for an infinite period of time, then an actually infinite period of time has now passed.

Hitetlen:

Well, time happens to be unidirectional. If the cause would follow the affected event (in time) we would see a “grandfather’s paradox”, in other words: a logical contradiction. Therefore the cause must either predate the event or be simultaneous with it. Since the speed of light (in vacuum) is natural barrier to cause-effect relationships, the case must predate the affected event. Therefore a causally prior event would also entail a temporally prior relationship. Q.E.D.

A) relativistic simultaneity is possible when two events occur in the same inertial frame. therefore causes and effects can be simultaneous if they occur in the same frame of reference. god’s frame of reference is the frame of the initial singularity.

B) special relativity doesn’t apply to the initial singularity, and nor does quantum theory as we currently understand it.

C) lorentzian relativity with its absolute frame of reference is compatible with einsteinian relativity, which in any case simply assumes that there is no absolute frame of reference.

D) the (apparent) confirmation of Bell’s inequality seems to imply relations of absolute simultaneity when it seems to entail that reality is non-local.

Q.E.D.

 

[Ghosty]

PLP:

I subscribe to the view that the essential properties of a thing are just those properties by virtue of which we assign the thing to a class. In keeping with Kant’s argument, I don’t view existence as a property; existence precedes essence, it precedes properties. Nonexistent thing don’t just lack the property of existence, there is nothing there to have or even lack any properties.

I don’t think you’re truly answering the viewpoint being expressed on this thread. Obviously a non-existant thing can’t lack or possess any properties, but no one here is talking about non-existant things, but rather things that either potentially or actually exist. Those are the only categories of things that can be discussed. Therefore, the question is not a matter of “things that exist” and “things that don’t”, but rather “things with the potential to exist”, and “things that actually exist”.

What’s more, to say that “the essential properties of a thing are the properties by which we assign it to a class” presents an absurd flaw obvious to any common mind, namely that it’s precisely the class that is being defined by “essence”. The arguments being presented here are not based on the view and definitions of Plato, but rather on those of Thomas Aquinas. We are not taking the stance that there is any “essential pumpkin” that all pumpkins are an image of, for example, but rather that there are traits used to define what we call pumpkins. These traits are essential to a plant being a pumpkin rather than a potato, but do not represent any kind of distillable “pumpkiness”.

With that clarification, I await your further posting.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MrWhy]

If space and time expanded as part of the universe, its important to note that space/time was not created by the BB or the universe, but is an inseparable integrated property of the universe. i.e., There was no “before” the Big Bang. There was no point in “time” when the universe did not exist. This raises doubt of the idea that the universe had a cause, since cause and the related effect presumes time. The Big Bang instant is a mystery that’s beyond our current knowledge. To speculate that it was the work of a intelligent entity (god) who has always existed only proposes an even greater mystery. “We don’t have a clue” is a more reasonable conclusion.

If the universe, time, and space are inseparable, there never was a “first moment”. A beginning would imply that there was a point in time when the universe did not exist, and a later point in time when it did exist. So rather than concluding that the BB leads us to “the universe had a beginning” it leads us to the opposite conclusion, the universe did not have a beginning. A cause is supposed to precede the effect it caused. Thus, cause and effect presumes time. The universe must already be in place if we want cause and effect to work, so the universe cannot have been caused.

But, even after stating my views in an affirmative tone, I propose we are missing essential knowledge, or ability, to understand the time and cause puzzle. Our capacity for understanding time (or to think we do) may be better than a chimp, but we should not assume we have the capacity for full understanding. For those of us who believe in the influence of evolution, it is interesting to consider that we have no essential need for more than a partial understanding of time. That may be why we have such difficulty thinking in that domain.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Just because for two sepcific events you can find a “prior-later” or “cause-effect” relationship you cannot assume that such a relationship exists either for any arbitrary pair of events, or the universe itself.

It suffices to find a single case to prove that the concept is manifest at all. And if it is manifest there, we can carry it back to see how far it might go. We can also take this “example” and see that the concept is actually manifest in most of the visible universe.

Protons and electrons have to exist before hydrogen or any other atom can exist.

Hitetlen:

(Another illustration: every human has a mother, but the summary of all humans - humanity - does not have a mother.

Sorry, but this is an assertion that cannot be proven. In fact, mtDNA also supports the notion that we all share the same ancestral mother.

Hitetlen:

In other words, if you wish to posit that the universe must be part of a cause-effect relationship, that must be proven, not asserted.)

And proofs must be acknowledged and expounded, not denied.

It is a simple proof that an atom is composed, and therefore caused. Do you deny that?

Hitetlen:

Just like it is meaningless to ask: “what is to the north from the North Pole?”

Right, it is not logical to try to ask questions inherently contrary to a definition. That would be foolish.

Hitetlen:

it is meaningless to ask: “what happened before the Big Bang?”

The Big Bang is itself an assertion, a hypothesis of sorts but with no possibility of repeating in the laboratory. “Before” the big bang, we had other guesses or beliefs as to what happened. The Big Bang has been developing, and I don’t know that there is a fixed definition for it.

It is not inherently meaningless to ask that question unless by “Big Bang” you mean a hypothesis or theory that explictly posits that there was nothing before it. In that case, one would ask different questions.

Hitetlen:

Since time is contingent upon the density of matter, which cannot be determined at the “time” of the Big Bang, there can be no prior-later pair for the events.

So, since density cannot be determined for sure, then there is for certain no prior-later pair? That is not valid reasoning, regardless of whether or not the conclusion happens to be accurate.

This is the third time now that you have used uncertainty in a premise to make an apparently certain conclusion. Now, I recall that you oppose those who assert things without “proof”. What would you say of someone who proves things false on the basis that he can imagine it as being uncertain? I would say he will only believe something he is permanently and irreversably forced to acknowledge, against his will. But has not such a person chosen to serve a tyrant? I hope you are only slipping up in your logic, and do not have the disposition of such a person.

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

And why should we suppose that these things are not products of human minds?

Because human minds encounter them independently of each other.

Truth is something the mind can grasp, more or less according to the level of intelligence, and is not dependent upon the mind to exist.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

Definitely not the same!

The premise I make is more encompassing and addresses the misleading assumption made in the statement “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”.

…

Alright, time for some argumentation.

“Nothing can come from total nothingness”

What exactly is this making a statement about? I would think that it is making a statement about those things which, well, come into existence. Indeed, as you later point out, there are things which have always been; presumably such things don’t need to come from anything else. So we get:

“There is no thing which came into existence which came from total nothingess.”

Now, when it comes to precise logical speaking, we don’t really say that things are true of nothing, as it were; instead we say that there is no thing such that they are true about it. So:

“There is no thing x which came into existence such that for every other thing y, x did not come from y”

Now, let’s make this a little more formal, with:
B(x) iff x came into existence
C(x,y) iff x came from y
Now, what exactly is this “came from” notion? Can we say that it is equivalent to causality? Probably. So:
C(x,y) iff y caused x

Note that I’ll be using [e] and [a] to represent “there exists” and “for all,” respectively; also take “~” and “—>” to mean “not” and “implies,” respectively. So, now we’ve got this statement:

~[e]x Bx & [a]y ~Cxy

Using simple logical maniputlation, we end up with:

[a]x ~Bx or [e]y Cxy

It is also true that, in general, “~A or B” is equivalent to “A —> B.” So:

[a]x Bx —> [e]y Cxy

If we unpack that statement, we get:

“For every x, if x began to exist, then there is some y such that y caused x”

Said more simply:

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause”

Incidentally, what is the mistaken assumption you see in this statement?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

Forms. For example, a circle. If the circle did not exist, then matter could not take on the form of a circle, nor could someone think about a circle or the pi ratio. The existence of the non-material circle came beforehand. The same could be said for any geometric shape.

Another example would be the number of possible combinations in a rubik’s cube.

Anything that could potentially be manifested in the physical universe, but which has not yet actually happened.

Certain abstract mathematical theories have only recently been discovered, but they existed before anyone ever thought of them.

As I said previously, there is a difference between the world, and our representations of the world. Abstract objects like “circle” are our representations of the world, whereas circles are things in the world. In no way do circles depend on the concept of circle.

…

You recognize already that matter and energy cannot think for themselves.

…

I said nothing of the sort, actually; I merely said that a certain particular arrangement of matter and energy could not, presumably, think.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

Because human minds encounter them independently of each other.

Truth is something the mind can grasp, more or less according to the level of intelligence, and is not dependent upon the mind to exist.

hurst

I think it is expectable that different people, each capable of rational thought, will form similar representations of the world, when presented with the same world.

 

[MrWhy]

hurst:

Because human minds encounter them independently of each other.

Truth is something the mind can grasp, more or less according to the level of intelligence, and is not dependent upon the mind to exist.hurst

Because human minds are similar in their ability and construction, they could independently develop similar ideas. These independent encounters could be the product of common intellectual weakness and fallibility, as well as intelligence. The encounters could be truth or fallacy. For an encounter to rise toward truth, extensive analysis of evidence is useful.

The mind is necessary for it is the only way we have to package an idea. However I do think truth is independent of some characteristics of the mind. Independent of characteristics such as popularity, credentials, age, number of words supporting, etc.

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

Regarding premise 1, I’m curious about a few things: what is “total nothingness”?

The absence of anything you can possibly or actually conceive of, and less. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no logic, no truth, no falsehood, no happiness, no sadness, no will, no memory, no forgetfulness, no goodness, no evil, no life, no death, no anything. etc.

EnterTheBowser:

Is total nothingness a “possible world”?

I suppose it might be, but then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. One could also argue that the very concept of nothingness is itself something (a concept), and thus show that it is impossible to “exist”. This makes sense, because nothingness is the absence of any existence, therefore it cannot exist, and we see by our senses that it in fact does not exist.

But the problem, as I stated before, is that people are assuming it as not only a possible world, but as an actuality some time in the past, from which they imagine the current things to have come from.

EnterTheBowser:

That aside, what is the support for 1? Is it something we know a priori, or is it something we’ve discovered from observing the world?

What do you mean by support? I would have to say logic supports it.

EnterTheBowser:

Is it equivalent to some sort of principle of causality (eg “everything which begins to exist has a cause”)?

It is not equivalent. A closer rendering could be “That which does not exist cannot cause something to begin to exist.”

EnterTheBowser:

hurst:

And as a corollary,

4. Therefore, there must have actually always been "something"

At this point, we do not know what this “something” is, except that it must have actually always been.

I think that you make a slight mistake here. Admitting that you have shown that there must have been something which had no beginning - but you have not shown that it cannot have an end.

Hm. I didn’t think that would be denied. Something with no beginning cannot be destroyed by anything else. Would it just make itself go away then?

EnterTheBowser:

I think also that there may be something wrong with talking about time in relation to this thing. Since this thing is the ultimate cause of everything, is it right to say that it caused time to exist?

Yes.

EnterTheBowser:

Lastly, is it correct to say that this “something” necessarily exists in the modal sense of the word?

I don’t understand your question.

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

“Nothing can come from total nothingness”

What exactly is this making a statement about? I would think that it is making a statement about those things which, well, come into existence. Indeed, as you later point out, there are things which have always been; presumably such things don’t need to come from anything else. So we get:

“There is no thing which came into existence which came from total nothingess.”

You have changed two things.

First, I was using logic to say that something can not be done. You changed it to refer to that which has been done.

Secondly, I did not use the word “existence”. This is something we are trying to understand in the first place.

Other than that, as long as you restrict these “things” as those which come into existence (as opposed to that which has always been), then I see no problem.

EnterTheBowser:

Now, when it comes to precise logical speaking, we don’t really say that things are true of nothing, as it were; instead we say that there is no thing such that they are true about it.

I did not know that, and it sounds somewhat limiting.

EnterTheBowser:

So:

“There is no thing x which came into existence such that for every other thing y, x did not come from y”

Again, as long you restrict “thing x” to that which has not always been.

However, y cannot be restricted the same way. It must include both that which has always been, and that which has not always been.

With that understanding, I can accept your formula.

EnterTheBowser:

Now, let’s make this a little more formal, with:
B(x) iff x came into existence
C(x,y) iff x came from y
Now, what exactly is this “came from” notion? Can we say that it is equivalent to causality? Probably. So:
C(x,y) iff y caused x

Note that I’ll be using [e] and [a] to represent “there exists” and “for all,” respectively; also take “~” and “—>” to mean “not” and “implies,” respectively. So, now we’ve got this statement:

~[e]x Bx & [a]y ~Cxy

Using simple logical maniputlation, we end up with:

[a]x ~Bx or [e]y Cxy

It is also true that, in general, “~A or B” is equivalent to “A —> B.” So:

[a]x Bx —> [e]y Cxy

If we unpack that statement, we get:

“For every x, if x began to exist, then there is some y such that y caused x”

I’m impressed

EnterTheBowser:

Said more simply:

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause”

Incidentally, what is the mistaken assumption you see in this statement?

The misleading assumptions are

1. confusion between the types of things existing and causing. In other words, between x and y. I stated above that x has to be limited and y not limited.
2. more fundamentally, the underlying unstated belief that we not only start without that which begins to exist, but also that we do so in an environment of nothingness, as if all happens in a vacuum.

Let me give an example: a child may ask where he came from, realizing he wasn’t always here. His parents say he came from them. The child, transferring the thought pertaining to himself to his parents, ask where they came from? This goes on up to Adam, until told that Adam came from God. The child goes to bed, and in saying his prayers, asks God where He came from? Perhaps God had parents, too. But then where did God’s parents come from? Where does it end? How can it be?

So you see, the mistaken notion is that one is in some kind of realm of nothingness in which things exist and come from other things, but in which the “first thing” cannot be imagined.

But then how do we imagine the nothingness to have always been there, holding these “things”? There is the problem. We have the ability to accept that something always was, but if we accept total nothingness as having that role, then we will be forever confounded in our search. We should rather be thinking of things existing in an infinite eternally existing “somethingness”, though distinct from it. The only other alternative is nothingness, which is contrary to the truth we experience. Let us direct our minds in the truth.

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

In no way do circles depend on the concept of circle.

That is debatable. But more tellingly, the concept of a circle is not dependent on manifestations of circles. In fact, it is hard or impossible to make a perfect circle.

The concept of a circle can be understood, but existed before someone understood it.

EnterTheBowser:

You recognize already that matter and energy cannot think for themselves.

I said nothing of the sort, actually; I merely said that a certain particular arrangement of matter and energy could not, presumably, think.

Let me ask you directly. Do you believe a single atom can think? Do you believe heat or light can think? Do you believe that a combination of atoms and electricity in the circuitry of a computer running a program can think?

Now, we surely agree that people think. Physically speaking, we are made of atoms, molecules, heat, electricity, etc. Do you believe this combination of matter and energy is thinking on its own?

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

I think it is expectable that different people, each capable of rational thought, will form similar representations of the world, when presented with the same world.

How do you explain that some people are good and helpful, while others are bad and resentful? Some people see the world totally differently.

In fact, there are both good and evil concepts, and we can choose which we will entertain in our thoughts. They exist independently of us. We only manifest one or the other, according to our choices.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

You have changed two things.

First, I was using logic to say that something can not be done. You changed it to refer to that which has been done.

Sorry; just fiddle the tenses and it works.

Secondly, I did not use the word “existence”. This is something we are trying to understand in the first place.

You might not have explicitly stated it but I think the whole notion of “comes from” includes it.

Other than that, as long as you restrict these “things” as those which come into existence (as opposed to that which has always been), then I see no problem.

Well, when I say that it is true of all things that begin to exist, then it is obviously only talking about such things.

I did not know that, and it sounds somewhat limiting.

It’s really the same thing, in the end.

Again, as long you restrict “thing x” to that which has not always been.

However, y cannot be restricted the same way. It must include both that which has always been, and that which has not always been.

With that understanding, I can accept your formula.

I’m impressed

Thanks.

The misleading assumptions are

1. confusion between the types of things existing and causing. In other words, between x and y. I stated above that x has to be limited and y not limited.

I accounted for this with the requirement that x begin to exist, while I placed no such restriction on y.

1. more fundamentally, the underlying unstated belief that we not only start without that which begins to exist, but also that we do so in an environment of nothingness, as if all happens in a vacuum.

…

I don’t think that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” really contains that particular assumption.

Regarding the conclusions we can draw from that principle… I’m gettting to that. ; )

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

That is debatable. But more tellingly, the concept of a circle is not dependent on manifestations of circles. In fact, it is hard or impossible to make a perfect circle.

The concept of a circle can be understood, but existed before someone understood it.

It is true that the notion of circle was derivable from the axioms of geometry before anyone ever did so, but I would not think that the concept of a circle existed before anyone did so.

Let me ask you directly. Do you believe a single atom can think?

No.

Do you believe heat or light can think?

It might be possible to set up the proper sort of system, but I’m not really sure how.

Do you believe that a combination of atoms and electricity in the circuitry of a computer running a program can think?

Yes.

Now, we surely agree that people think. Physically speaking, we are made of atoms, molecules, heat, electricity, etc. Do you believe this combination of matter and energy is thinking on its own?

Yes.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

hurst:

How do you explain that some people are good and helpful, while others are bad and resentful? Some people see the world totally differently.

In fact, there are both good and evil concepts, and we can choose which we will entertain in our thoughts. They exist independently of us. We only manifest one or the other, according to our choices.

hurst

Well, I think that there is a difference between recognizing certain facts to be the case, and what sort of moral guide one has with regards towards what sort of facts one wants to bring about.