First Cause

[warpspeedpetey]

Cosmology has advanced since 1947. I suggest you have a look at The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

rossum

Cosmology has nothing to do with logic and logic says that no number of contingent beings can be their own cause. An infinite number of apples is not an orchard. An infinite flock of lambs is not a ewe and an infinite number contingent beings is not a cause.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Then the First Cause is not eternal, and has no requirement to be eternal? It could merely exist long enough to cause the first effect and then disappear?

When something is eternal, it exists outside all relations of time. How could there be a time component?

Since all points in an eternal universe are equivalent, I can start wherever I wish.
rossum

Now you have to prove there is an eternal Universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is an intentionally paradoxical statement about saying the unsayable. How could it be otherwise?

I am pointing out why it is not a good example. You said you do not accept absolutes, but now you say you do.

I am talking about dependency. It may be a dependency on time or it may be a dependency on something else. Time is not essential to my argument, dependency is. In this case the dependency is on the ordering criterion…

Are you saying that you no longer reject logical precedence as an ordering criterion? Because I am under the impression that you were not.

 

[JDaniel]

The difficulty I see in rossum’s position is that an infinitely old universe goes back infinitely in time. However, to get to the current point in time would mean we would have to have travelled from an infinitely past point. Logically, we could never reach the present from an infinite past.

SoG:

You are correct. To not understand that, when speaking of infinite time, is to hold a very poor understanding of “infinite.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Remember it’s your mind, not theirs. You are the mental factory that is producing all that there is. You are essentially projecting your mind into the mind of your parents.

Rel1:

Are you Catholic?

God bless,
jd

 

[John21652]

It could merely exist long enough to cause the first effect and then disappear?

rossum

Logically possibly true…

However, you have successfully given us THE answer it has taken page after page of pedantic semantics to arrive at.

Something existed prior to the first effect and was its cause. Therefore it was a First Cause

Thank you Rossum!

Now off you go and argue over its eternal existence, or otherwise, to your hearts desire.

 

[rossum]

This is no justification here nor do you substantiate your assertions of chronological primacy. You are merely stating that there is primacy and time is a “common” ordering but do not demonstrate it’s an essential requisite for First Cause.

I do not assert time as the only possible source of primacy. There may be chronological primacy, but there are other forms of primacy as well. The “First Lady” is not the oldest lady in America.

I do assert temporal ordering in the case of causation. The cause has to exist before the effect. If the effect is already in existence then there is no need for the cause to exist at all. Do you want to explain how an effect can exist before its cause?

You do not substantiate your assertion of dependency of criterion. You do not seem to make argument here other than to say there “must” be criterion.

It is the criterion used to determine “First”. In the case of the First Lady, it is being married to the President. There is some qualifying property that makes the use of “First” correct. It is whatever the required justification for the use of “First” is.

Since First Cause is a cause-effect event, then your assertion for a time requisite must hold for it as well. You do not address what I perceive is a contradiction.

Time is not always required for “First”. Time is required for “Cause”. How can a cause not come before its effect?

You are merely shifting the focus and your points are immaterial to the cause-effect event.

The absence of cheating is perfectly material to winning a race. Just ask Ben Johnson.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Cosmology has nothing to do with logic and logic says that no number of contingent beings can be their own cause. An infinite number of apples is not an orchard. An infinite flock of lambs is not a ewe and an infinite number contingent beings is not a cause.

Cosmology has to do with reality. If reality and logic conflict then there is an error in the logic.

rossum

 

[rossum]

When something is eternal, it exists outside all relations of time. How could there be a time component?

If there is no time then we cannot determine of something is eternal or not. If something is not eternal then there is a time when it does not exist. I did not exist 5,000 years ago so I am not eternal. Something eternal will exist for all possible values of time. If there is no time then there is no measurable difference between the two.

Now you have to prove there is an eternal Universe.

For that I use Buddhist scripture. Some science is working in the same direction, the Multiverse or possibly an oscillating universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am pointing out why it is not a good example. You said you do not accept absolutes, but now you say you do.

I do not accept absolutes. My sig makes a point about the nature of language, and its deficiencies. It is not a philosophical absolute.

Are you saying that you no longer reject logical precedence as an ordering criterion? Because I am under the impression that you were not.

I do not reject logical precedence as an ordering criterion. In such a case then “First” is dependent on the premises and the correctness of the logical argument used to establish its precedence. Any correct logical argument depends on its premises.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Something existed prior to the first effect and was its cause. Therefore it was a First Cause

Gotcha!

You said “prior”. We are back to a dependency on time. I do not dispute the existence of something called “First Cause”. I dispute that it has no dependencies on other things to justify it being described as “First” and as “Cause”.

rossum

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

The absence of cheating is perfectly material to winning a race. Just ask Ben Johnson.

rossum

Touché! :clapping:

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If there is no time then we cannot determine of something is eternal or not. If something is not eternal then there is a time when it does not exist. I did not exist 5,000 years ago so I am not eternal. Something eternal will exist for all possible values of time. If there is no time then there is no measurable difference between the two.

To be eternal is to be outside time constraints. Eternal is a qualitative distinction, while something like infinite is a quantitative one. I believe you are saying infinite time is the same as eternal, which is not the case.

For that I use Buddhist scripture. Some science is working in the same direction, the Multiverse or possibly an oscillating universe.

Yes, I’m aware of those some of those models. Some are interesting, others are junk science.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I do assert temporal ordering in the case of causation. The cause has to exist before the effect. If the effect is already in existence then there is no need for the cause to exist at all. Do you want to explain how an effect can exist before its cause?

In simpilest terms, a cause precedes it’s effect in some fashion (e.g. logically, temporally, etc…). To explain how an effect precedes cause it akin to explaining a circle that is square. However, cause-effect events can be chronologically concurrent, as my footrace scenario demonstrates. Cause-effect events often refer to states and achievements.

It is the criterion used to determine “First”. In the case of the First Lady, it is being married to the President. There is some qualifying property that makes the use of “First” correct. It is whatever the required justification for the use of “First” is.

Would you so kind elaborate further, as I want to be certain what qualities are you are asserting for your definition of First Cause? I am presuming time for the causitive portion. To argue in the honour of Ben Johnson, the First Lady example could be interpreted in several ways. Many countries have a First Lady but they are not married to a President (a Prime Minister for instance). A First Lady could be the woman that is a consort but not married to the President.

Time is not always required for “First”. Time is required for “Cause”. How can a cause not come before its effect?

As I’ve stated and demonstrated, time is not necessarily required for cause-effect events.

 

[rel1]

Reading through various posts the word “INFINITY” has been referred to several times. Here is my understanding…Can we all agree that the definition is basically “without beginning or end?” If we can does this water down or change the meaning when someone refers to a progression or regression of any kind. In other words when something is added to infinity, does this create a new infinity. If it does than it was never really infinite. Infinity plus anything is still going to equal infinity. Anything subtracted from infinity also equals infinity. Infinity cancels out when subtacting infinity from itself. Since time is considered a progression of events or effects, then how can time be of any relevance when referencing infinity? Another tick on the clock is not going to bring us any closer to infinity. Any multiple of zillions of ticks on the clock will not get us any closer. If someone thinks otherwise, please let me know…

 

[rossum]

To be eternal is to be outside time constraints. Eternal is a qualitative distinction, while something like infinite is a quantitative one. I believe you are saying infinite time is the same as eternal, which is not the case.

Then we will have to disagree. To me eternal and ‘infinite in time’ are the same thing.

Yes, I’m aware of those some of those models. Some are interesting, others are junk science.

Of course. Research in the area is very definitely ongoing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In simpilest terms, a cause precedes it’s effect in some fashion (e.g. logically, temporally, etc…). To explain how an effect precedes cause it akin to explaining a circle that is square. However, cause-effect events can be chronologically concurrent, as my footrace scenario demonstrates. Cause-effect events often refer to states and achievements.

If we idealise the footrace scenario so the decision of the winner does not depend on any further conditions, drug testing etc, then we do not have a separate cause and separate effect. We only have one thing, single event with two different names. “Crossing the finishing line first” is, by definition, “winning the race”. There are not two different events linked by cause and effect, but one single event with two different names. When the winner gets home she can say either “Honey, I finished first,” or, “Honey, I won.” There is no difference in meaning.

Would you so kind elaborate further, as I want to be certain what qualities are you are asserting for your definition of First Cause?

I am not asserting a First Cause. I am criticising the concept of an independent First Cause. I am trying to show that it is dependent on at least four things:* a finite universe.

• a precedence criterion, for “First”.
• an effect, for “Cause”.
• time, for causation to work at all.

I am presuming time for the causitive portion. To argue in the honour of Ben Johnson, the First Lady example could be interpreted in several ways. Many countries have a First Lady but they are not married to a President (a Prime Minister for instance). A First Lady could be the woman that is a consort but not married to the President.

Whatever each country decides, there is some criterion by which the First Lady, or First Dude , is chosen. That criterion provides the dependency.

rossum

 

[rel1]

Time is a mental construct only. It"s only conceptualized by the mind to sequence events and give some order to reality.

 

[rel1]

Then we will have to disagree. To me eternal and ‘infinite in time’ are the same thing.

Of course. Research in the area is very definitely ongoing.

rossum

There are different meanings to the word eternal. I think it would be best to stick with infinite.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If we idealise the footrace scenario so the decision of the winner does not depend on any further conditions, drug testing etc, then we do not have a separate cause and separate effect. We only have one thing, single event with two different names. “Crossing the finishing line first” is, by definition, “winning the race”. There are not two different events linked by cause and effect, but one single event with two different names. When the winner gets home she can say either “Honey, I finished first,” or, “Honey, I won.” There is no difference in meaning.

It seems you cannot distinguish between the act and it’s culmination. That’s why you fail to understand cause-effect events. Stating the act of crossing the line first is the same as winning demonstrates this lack of perception.

If I climb a set of stairs, its culmination is when I reach the top. The event of being at the top is instantaneous at its culmination. One cannot achieve the state of being at top of the stairs without ascending them but being at the top is not the same as ascending them, hence, they cannot be the same thing. However, following your line of reasoning they would be, which of course is illogical.

To correct your analogy of the winner coming home using my example, he should say, “Honey, I crossed the finish line first.” This still leaves the question of ‘did he win the race’ for the two are not, absolutely speaking, one in the same. Although it can be perceived as being synonymous by the lay person (who is making an assumption), they are not by nature synonymous philosophically speaking.

I am not asserting a First Cause. I am criticising the concept of an independent First Cause. I am trying to show that it is dependent on at least four things:

• a finite universe.
• a precedence criterion, for “First”.
• an effect, for “Cause”.
• time, for causation to work at all.

Please demonstrate your critique. If you have already do so, let me know which post to reference for review.