First Cause

[Ghosty]

You have said this but have failed to prove it in any way.

If something has always existed then it can not have been caused.

This highlights my problem with the original poster’s formula. Something that has always existed can certainly still be caused. To use the classic Greek example, an eternal foot making an eternal footprint in sand. Both are without beginning, but the footprint is caused by the foot. Even without change there is a definite causal relationship between foot and footprint.

This is why I would say the original formula is flawed, because it leaves itself open to the argument that the universe has always existed (not scientifically supported with current evidence, but it might be some day). Better to argue from the fact that the universe, like the footprint, doesn’t explain itself and can’t be the reason of its own being; there is no universal law of unchanging existence in the universe. The First Cause is then easily established, without risk of losing out to scientific development.

In short, we know by Faith and by reasonable scientific conclusion that the universe has a beginning, but it’s not a certainty in a philosophic sense.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

LOL I’m confused?

Firstly what i said has nothing to do with evolution, but abiogenesis. Secondly go back to wiki and read the next paragraph. Empiricism in philosophy is not the same as empirical evidence, and lastly one does not need to observe an event to view empirical evidence.

To save you going to wiki “In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely** related to evidence**, especially as discovered in experiments”

/ END LESSON]

Empiricism in philosophy is what empiricism is! Your inability to consider the concept outside of that philosophical subdivision, science, which you fail to realise is such, can be wearisome

I think you’re reading a different article! Anyway, trundling back to the wiki, your description appears to omit, and therefore de-emphasize that it is also casually mentioned that even the philosophy of science (that currently most exclusivist form of empirical investigation) requires that “…theories must be tested against observations of the natural world” - thereby ignoring, again, the element of experience I increasingly feel is a decreasing feature of said philosophical subdivision demonstrates a decreasingly application within the scientific community of true logic. Tonyrey’s point is perfectly valid. No scientist has experienced abiogenesis - therefore there is a void in the rather essential empirical element of scientific investigation. Until then, any talk of abiogenesis is entirely a matter of theory, and increasingly, of dogmatic, zealous faith

well, it was you that brought evolution up! Anyway, I’d suggest it is perfectly irrational to believe that the concurrence of circumstances required for the appearance of life, never mind human life, occurred by themselves, purely based on a rational approach to the odds

Even if the rather costly experiments currently being undertaken that are meant to actuate abiogenesis succeed, they would still not neccesarily conclusively imply, by their very nature, that abiogenesis by chance is reasonably assumable to be the source of life on Earth - rather the opposite

 

[AlbertBall]

I think you’re reading a different article! Anyway, trundling back to the wiki, you casually omit, and therefore de-emphasize that it is also casually mentioned that the philosophy of science (that currently most exclusivist form of empirical investigation) requires that “…theories *must * be tested against observations of the natural world” - thereby ignoring, again, the element of experience I increasingly feel is a decreasing feature of a subdivision of philosophical investigation which is decreasingly appreciative of real logic. Tonyrey’s point is perfectly valid. No scientist has experienced abiogenesis - therefore there is a void in the rather essential empirical element of scientific investigation. Until then, any talk of abiogenesis is entirely a matter of theory, and increasingly, of dogmatic, zealous faith

well, it was you that brought evolution up! Anyway, I’d suggest it is perfectly irrational to believe that the concurrence of circumstances required for the appearance of life, never mind human life, occurred by themselves, purely based on a rational approach to the odds

Even if the rather costly experiments currently being undertaken that are meant to actuate abiogenesis succeed, they would still not neccesarily conclusively imply, by their very nature, that abiogenesis by chance is reasonably assumable to be the source of life on Earth - rather the opposite

No i didn’t ever mention evolution!

Also you are totally incorrect if you think one has to witness an event to be able to produce empirical evidence that supports the event. This is a very common misunderstanding among those that are not trained in science, and a good reason why people who do not understand a subject should be careful about passing comment on it.

 

[Luke_K]

To use the classic Greek example, an eternal foot making an eternal footprint in sand. Both are without beginning, but the footprint is caused by the foot. Even without change there is a definite causal relationship between foot and footprint.

It seems to me like that example is applying our experience of time-dependent causes to an eternal cause. There is no way to tell that the footprint is caused by the foot other than our experience of footprints always following a foot stepping in the sand. That is a fallacious example.

How about the formation of the earth causing north and south poles to exist? There is no time-relation between the two events. As soon as the globe existed, it caused north and south poles to exist. It can’t be said the other way around though. A globe cannot be formed from a north and south pole first existing.

But hey, I’m not a philosopher.

 

[The_Exodus]

This highlights my problem with the original poster’s formula. Something that has always existed can certainly still be caused. To use the classic Greek example, an eternal foot making an eternal footprint in sand. Both are without beginning, but the footprint is caused by the foot. Even without change there is a definite causal relationship between foot and footprint.

This is why I would say the original formula is flawed, because it leaves itself open to the argument that the universe has always existed (not scientifically supported with current evidence, but it might be some day). Better to argue from the fact that the universe, like the footprint, doesn’t explain itself and can’t be the reason of its own being; there is no universal law of unchanging existence in the universe. The First Cause is then easily established, without risk of losing out to scientific development.

In short, we know by Faith and by reasonable scientific conclusion that the universe has a beginning, but it’s not a certainty in a philosophic sense.

Peace and God bless!

Yhatzee. Said like a true Thomist!

I would say that, that the infinitude of the universe - its incomprehensibility - thus shows humans how feeble their minds really are. We cannot know anything at all, except by presupposing unprovable assumptions. And, if we came from this blind and purposeless cosmos, we have no reason to think our brains are “evolved” enough to arrive at truth anyway. We wouldn’t think monkeys have as accurate a picture of reality as we do. If we are just the next step in an infinite chain of “a will to power”, why are we so important? Furthermore, we have no way of knowing that we are not all in the matrix, or that our memories are trustworthy, or that we are not really brains in a vat.

All knowledge is presupposed by faith. And yet faith is not contrary to reason. The two - as JPII says so nicely - are mutually inclusive. Each one taken alone leads to absurdities.

 

[tonyrey]

What does being there to see the thing happen have to do with empirical evidence?

All empirical evidence is based on observation by the five senses. According to the empiricist who rejects all other forms of knowledge: if we cannot see, touch, hear, taste or smell an object or an event we have no knowledge that it exists or has occurred (including, of course, the existence or occurrence of our own thoughts and feelings…)

 

[AlbertBall]

All empirical evidence is based on observation by the five senses. According to the empiricist who rejects all other forms of knowledge: if we cannot see, touch, hear, taste or smell an object or an event we have no knowledge that it exists or has occurred (including, of course, the existence or occurrence of our own thoughts and feelings…)

But we do NOT need to be there to see the event take place to be able to view empicial evidence that supports the event.

 

[tonyrey]

But we do NOT need to be there to see the event take place to be able to view empicial evidence that supports the event.

No but according to the empiricist there must be some evidence that was observable in principle and if that evidence is lacking the theory remains a theory.

 

[AlbertBall]

No but according to the empiricist there must be some evidence that was observable in principle and if that evidence is lacking the theory remains a theory.

I’m nor sure what your missing here

But we do NOT need to be there to see the event take place to be able to **view empicial evidence that supports the event. **

 

[tonyrey]

I’m nor sure what your missing here

But we do NOT need to be there to see the event take place to be able to **view empirical evidence that supports the event. **

I didn’t say we need to be there!. I asked you if you had seen it take place. Then, assuming that you did not, I asked you: Where is the empirical evidence? That is what I am missing because you have provided none …

 

[Mystic_Banana]

No i didn’t ever mention evolution!

Post no. 27? What of your other many assumptions were you otherwise referring to?

Also you are totally incorrect if you think one has to witness an event to be able to produce empirical evidence that supports the event. This is a very common misunderstanding among those that are not trained in science, and a good reason why people who do not understand a subject should be careful about passing comment on it.

Ah, but going back to Tony’s original point, he was referring to your lack of empirical evidence of the event itself. You can provide evidence that such an event is possible, but that in itself is not empirical evidence that what you are attempting to replicate matches the replication. You can examine the results of the original event, theorise over cause and effect, and assume similarity (or, for the more dogmatic, indentical) causation.

Also, you continue to talk in exclusively scientific terms, but do not expect that everyone else feel the need to limit themselves to scientific evidence

 

[Ghosty]

It seems to me like that example is applying our experience of time-dependent causes to an eternal cause. There is no way to tell that the footprint is caused by the foot other than our experience of footprints always following a foot stepping in the sand. That is a fallacious example.

It’s important when making an analogy to use something familiar to clarify the less familiar. There will ALWAYS be points of divergence and imperfect parallels in any analogy; the point is to bridge a gap of understanding, not simply state the same thing twice.

In this case I use the footprint example because it’s something we’re familiar with. The entire point is that footprints are, by definition, caused by feet. They never, ever cause feet, however. So if you have a timeless, unchanging foot in sand, you also have a timeless, unchanging footprint yet the footprint remains a product of the foot and not visa versa. It’s certainly not the cause of itself. St. Thomas Aquinas used this same argument to show that the universe can only be known to have a beginning by Faith (though the Big Bang goes further than the knowledge they had in his day). St. Augustine also referenced this explaination in “The City of God”.

Now, if you want an example that is not an analogy then just look at the Trinity. The Son is the eternal Image of the Father, and this is the relation of an effect to a cause. The begetting of the Son is eternal, and both the Father and the Son are unchanging, but the Son is eternally the “effect” and the Father is eternally the “cause”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

There appears to be two issues with the current thread which need dealing with.

1. Cause and causation are temporally based. We are unaware of anything in the area of causality that is independent of time. Therefore talking about a first “cause” appears to be non-sensical unless we assume that time is not just a property of our universe but also a property “before” or “outside” our universe. Quite simply this is not data we have available to us. VonDerrTann just replies to this with “Adding the bit about space and time just confuses the matter.” I am sorry the reality of the situation is confusing to someone, but just because it makes the question more complicated for some people, does not negate the fact that this is in fact a large part of the issue.
2. The second big issue is that people are referring to the “beginning” of the universe and to the “big bang” etc. Again this is not data we have now. Imagine a blob of clay in a sphere. I suddenly stretch this into a log and call it “the big stretch” event. The log had a beginning. I can not extrapolate from that that the entire thing had a beginning. Similarly the “big bang” was the beginning ONLY of the current FORM of the universe. This tells us nothing of what existed “before” the “big bang”. For all we know the singularity the universe expanded out from is eternal, or the form this singularity had before that form was eternal, and so on with infinite regress.

The OP posting therefore is based on two massive assumptions that we simply are not in a position to make. The reality of the situation may even be that we will never fully understand this as our minds are entirely temporally based and understanding the concept of a non-temporal system may, for all we know, be beyond us. Then again, when we get more data, it might be entirely easy to understand. I wait in joyful hope of the data.

Until then we are stuck with people like Cooldude who offer us from the “arguments from incredulity” fallacy such as “I don’t see how it can be X, therefore it is just not possible” as if one person’s, or all people’s, inability to conceive of something has any implication on the actual truth of that something.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There appears to be two issues with the current thread which need dealing with.

1. Cause and causation are temporally based. We are unaware of anything in the area of causality that is independent of time. Therefore talking about a first “cause” appears to be non-sensical unless we assume that time is not just a property of our universe but also a property “before” or “outside” our universe. Quite simply this is not data we have available to us. VonDerrTann just replies to this with “Adding the bit about space and time just confuses the matter.” I am sorry the reality of the situation is confusing to someone, but just because it makes the question more complicated for some people, does not negate the fact that this is in fact a large part of the issue.
2. The second big issue is that people are referring to the “beginning” of the universe and to the “big bang” etc. Again this is not data we have now. Imagine a blob of clay in a sphere. I suddenly stretch this into a log and call it “the big stretch” event. The log had a beginning. I can not extrapolate from that that the entire thing had a beginning. Similarly the “big bang” was the beginning ONLY of the current FORM of the universe. This tells us nothing of what existed “before” the “big bang”. For all we know the singularity the universe expanded out from is eternal, or the form this singularity had before that form was eternal, and so on with infinite regress.

The OP posting therefore is based on two massive assumptions that we simply are not in a position to make. The reality of the situation may even be that we will never fully understand this as our minds are entirely temporally based and understanding the concept of a non-temporal system may, for all we know, be beyond us. Then again, when we get more data, it might be entirely easy to understand. I wait in joyful hope of the data.

Until then we are stuck with people like Cooldude who offer us from the “arguments from incredulity” fallacy such as “I don’t see how it can be X, therefore it is just not possible” as if one person’s, or all people’s, inability to conceive of something has any implication on the actual truth of that something.

I think the main drive of the argument is rather “the data that is available makes X either impossible or too unlikely to be considered a reasonable explanation, so the only reasonable explanation is Y”, or at least that’s the way I see it - sorry if you’re confused about this

 

[Ghosty]

1. Cause and causation are temporally based. We are unaware of anything in the area of causality that is independent of time. Therefore talking about a first “cause” appears to be non-sensical unless we assume that time is not just a property of our universe but also a property “before” or “outside” our universe. Quite simply this is not data we have available to us. VonDerrTann just replies to this with “Adding the bit about space and time just confuses the matter.” I am sorry the reality of the situation is confusing to someone, but just because it makes the question more complicated for some people, does not negate the fact that this is in fact a large part of the issue

The fact that we only experience temporal cause and effect doesn’t mean that cause and effect are necessarily temporal. There is absolutely nothing in the definitions of “cause” and “effect” which require temporality; to limit their definitions purely because we live a temporal existence is absurd and narrowminded. The color red is also a temporal event to all our experience, but we don’t refer to it as having a necessary temporal component, and neither should we do so with cause and effect.

1. The second big issue is that people are referring to the “beginning” of the universe and to the “big bang” etc. Again this is not data we have now. Imagine a blob of clay in a sphere. I suddenly stretch this into a log and call it “the big stretch” event. The log had a beginning. I can not extrapolate from that that the entire thing had a beginning. Similarly the “big bang” was the beginning ONLY of the current FORM of the universe. This tells us nothing of what existed “before” the “big bang”. For all we know the singularity the universe expanded out from is eternal, or the form this singularity had before that form was eternal, and so on with infinite regress.

This is a possibility, but it doesn’t match the evidence we have. The “Big Bang”, so far as we can determine, was not merely a new event, but the very beginning of time itself. If the singularity was eternal, it would not have changed, and as a singularity it would be timeless and not subject to “before and after”. Some quantum hypotheses try to get around this, but so far there is no evidence for anything other than a “beginning of time”; such hypotheses remain conjecture based on the perceived need to escape a “beginning”, rather than on solid evidence.

That being said, even if the Big Bang was not the beginning of time, and the universe has always existed, it would not negate the need for a First Cause explaination, just as with the “eternal footprint”. We must either show that the universe, in whatever form, is a sufficient explaination of itself (which is nearly impossible, since the universe changes from moment to moment and therefore is not “pure act”), or we must posit some kind of First Cause however we describe it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[AlbertBall]

Post no. 27?

Post no. 27? = abiogenesis

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Post no. 27? = abiogenesis

If you’re talking molecules creating us (which you do) with regard abiogenesis, you’re talking evolution. Which you yourself further describe a couple of posts later: “Well there is a perfect example on non intelligent agents creating intelligent life.”

Uh, hang on, if you’re not - what, Albert, have you become… a creationist?!?

The whole life thing, of course, being a small chunk in the assumed causal flow…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

The fact that we only experience temporal cause and effect doesn’t mean that cause and effect are necessarily temporal. There is absolutely nothing in the definitions of “cause” and “effect” which require temporality; to limit their definitions purely because we live a temporal existence is absurd and narrowminded. The color red is also a temporal event to all our experience, but we don’t refer to it as having a necessary temporal component, and neither should we do so with cause and effect.

This is a possibility, but it doesn’t match the evidence we have. The “Big Bang”, so far as we can determine, was not merely a new event, but the very beginning of time itself. If the singularity was eternal, it would not have changed, and as a singularity it would be timeless and not subject to “before and after”. Some quantum hypotheses try to get around this, but so far there is no evidence for anything other than a “beginning of time”; such hypotheses remain conjecture based on the perceived need to escape a “beginning”, rather than on solid evidence.

That being said, even if the Big Bang was not the beginning of time, and the universe has always existed, it would not negate the need for a First Cause explaination, just as with the “eternal footprint”. We must either show that the universe, in whatever form, is a sufficient explaination of itself (which is nearly impossible, since the universe changes from moment to moment and therefore is not “pure act”), or we must posit some kind of First Cause however we describe it.

Peace and God bless!

This is the thing. Either you deny causality, or there is a first cause. Causality may, of course, not neccesarily be the only form of existence, but if it is one of them, it must neccesarily have been caused by something, but how can you have something that is not caused? unless you consider causailty to be co-existent with non-causal elements of reality… hmmm… interesting

I’m constantly resisting the urge to simply expound the cosmological proof of the existence of God, here, by the way… still, I’m interested to see if someone comes up with a particularly interesting theory of the root of causality I’ve never considered deeply…

 

[AlbertBall]

If you’re talking molecules creating us (which you do) with regard abiogenesis, you’re talking evolution. Which you yourself further describe a couple of posts later: “Well there is a perfect example on non intelligent agents creating intelligent life.”

Uh, hang on, if you’re not - what, Albert, have you become… a creationist?!?

The whole life thing, of course, being a small chunk in the assumed causal flow…

Its science, i don’t expect you to understand.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Its science, i don’t expect you to understand.

open mouth. change feet