For every effect their must be a cuase. Everbody debate this classical arguement please

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t want to be involved in this discussion. I just want to see a debate. I have set the table; i hope people will play.

1. For every effect there must be a cause.
2. In order to account for every effect there must be a cause that is not an effect.

Conclusion: There is therefore a first cause. This is what we understand to be God.

Please debate this argument.

 

[aperture]

Conclusion: There is therefore a first cause. This is what we understand to be God.

There’s a big ol’ difference between “God made us” and “God cares about us.”

 

[JohnDamian]

The argument is best formulated thus;

As an infinity of things that are ordered essentially is impossible - and as the totality of caused things that are essentially predicated by causation is itself caused; it must so be caused by some cause which is exempt and distinct from this totality; for else then the former would be the cause of itself; for the totality of dependant things is cause; and distinctly not on anything belonging to that totality - for that would entail a contradiction; Thus, the extra-total cause itself must be predicated by a lack of prior causation essentially; for else it must be an element of the composite of the totality of caused things etc. Viz. An extra-total (totality of contingent essence) cause exists.

Now, the problem of translating this argument into the God we know is a complex and difficult one - but it is nonetheless incredulous and preposterous to posit that no God exists; even if we can debate the exact form of God (which is not logically determinate).

 

[aperture]

Now, the problem of translating this argument into the God we know is a complex and difficult one - but it is nonetheless incredulous and preposterous to posit that no God exists; even if we can debate the exact form of God (which is not logically determinate).

But that’s really the issue at hand here. There’s a big difference between “there was a prime mover/first cause” and “that mover is sentient, caring, omnipotent…”. Huge.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

But that’s really the issue at hand here. There’s a big difference between “there was a prime mover/first cause” and “that mover is sentient, caring, omnipotent…”. Huge.

FINALLY!!! Someone other than me sees the logic in this statement.

FSC

 

[momor]

But that’s really the issue at hand here. There’s a big difference between “there was a prime mover/first cause” and “that mover is sentient, caring, omnipotent…”. Huge.

The wording of these philosphical arguments confuses me since my background is in science and not philosophy. The way I understand it in my own mind is that the Big Bang happened and created our Universe. But God had to be the one to create the infinitely dense point of matter and energy and set everything in motion. Everything after the explosion has been cause and effect. What came before that, if anything, only God knows. I can’t wait to get to heaven and find out.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m not sure I can buy into the second premise.

Why does there have to be a cause which is not an effect? The same event can be both a cause, and an effect. Now we’re back to chicken and egg.

Alan

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure I can buy into the second premise.

Why does there have to be a cause which is not an effect? The same event can be both a cause, and an effect. Now we’re back to chicken and egg.

Alan

I think he meant “an ultimate” cause which is not an effect. There are many causes which are effects, but they are caused by something else.

 

[reggieM]

But that’s really the issue at hand here. There’s a big difference between “there was a prime mover/first cause” and “that mover is sentient, caring, omnipotent…”. Huge.

There’s a bigger difference between “there is no first cause” and “there is one”. That’s what this argument is looking at.

Once you accept that there is a first cause, prime mover, you can move on to the next arguments. But if you don’t accept this first truth (which many do not) then that’s where the arguments have to start.

 

[aperture]

My mistake, then, since I saw the conclusion and also saw a big leap in logic when he said “this is what we know to be God.”

 

[Luke_K]

Since there was no time when the universe did not exist, why must it have a cause?

 

[coolduude]

I don’t want to be involved in this discussion. I just want to see a debate. I have set the table; i hope people will play.

1. For every effect there must be a cause.
2. In order to account for every effect there must be a cause that is not an effect.

Conclusion: There is therefore a first cause. This is what we understand to be God.

Please debate this argument.

Now I’ll have two personalities in my reply to this: that of an atheist/agnostic, and that of a believer.

Atheist/agnostic: “The universe has an infinite past, therefore it has no need to be created. Therefore, there is no first cause, and no God”

Believer: "Not true. Here’s the logic to prove that the past is finite:

1. An actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition (add one, add one, add one, etc.)
2. The past was created by successive addition by events moving from the future, into the present, then into the past. Take, for example, your birth. When you were conceived and grew in the womb, your imminent birth was a future event, however when your mother actually gave birth, your birth was in the present. Today, your birth is in the past. The same concept goes for every event. Therefore, the past was created by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the past is finite."

Since the past is finite, there must be a cause to the universe. This cause must be an independent being, in other words, it doesn’t receive existence from anything else. Also, there can’t be an infinite regress, because if there was, the whole process, by definition, could not have begun in the first place.

So, God exists.

Since there was no time when the universe did not exist, why must it have a cause?

It sounds here that you’re taking the stance that the past is infinite. See above

 

[Luke_K]

It sounds here that you’re taking the stance that the past is infinite. See above

No, I’m not, although I admit I was being vague. Can you point to a time when the universe did not exist? You can’t, because time is part of the universe.

Therefore, there is no need to postulate a “before” the universe, which means the universe is not the effect of anything and did not need a cause. The cosmological argument extrapolates where it is irrational to do so.

Besides, the whole cosmological argument seems to be unfounded. We have NO EXPERIENCE whatsoever of cause-and-effect relationships that result in something being created which at some time did not exist. We only have cause-and-effect relationships of matter and energy moving from one arrangement to another, while the matter and energy has always existed.

Since the past is finite, there must be a cause to the universe.

Not true.

 

[Luke_K]

The argument is best formulated thus;

As an infinity of things that are ordered essentially is impossible - and as the totality of caused things that are essentially predicated by causation is itself caused; it must so be caused by some cause which is exempt and distinct from this totality; for else then the former would be the cause of itself; for the totality of dependant things is cause; and distinctly not on anything belonging to that totality - for that would entail a contradiction; Thus, the extra-total cause itself must be predicated by a lack of prior causation essentially; for else it must be an element of the composite of the totality of caused things etc. Viz. An extra-total (totality of contingent essence) cause exists.

Now, the problem of translating this argument into the God we know is a complex and difficult one - but it is nonetheless incredulous and preposterous to posit that no God exists; even if we can debate the exact form of God (which is not logically determinate).

I don’t mean to sound offensive, but this just looks like wordplay to me. (I have not been educated in Thomistic philosophy.) Can you show me how any of what you said has a foundation in our experience of reality? Otherwise you’ve just thrown a bunch of arbitrarily-defined words around that force a conclusion.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t mean to sound offensive, but this just looks like wordplay to me. (I have not been educated in Thomistic philosophy.) Can you show me how any of what you said has a foundation in our experience of reality? Otherwise you’ve just thrown a bunch of arbitrarily-defined words around that force a conclusion.

I’d be happy too (although it’s not Thomistic - it is a different Scholastic, Scotus)

Firstly - an infinity of things that are essentially ordered is not possible.
This is so because of what is called an infinite regress

Secondly - and as the totality of caused things that are essentially predicated by causation is itself caused;
All caused things belong to a Finite group or “totality” of things which can be said to be caused. All “red” things belong to the totality of “red” things, like this all “caused” things belong to the totality of “caused” things.

Thirdly - it must so be caused by some cause which is exempt and distinct from this totality; for else then the former would be the cause of itself; for the totality of dependant things is cause; and distinctly not on anything belonging to that totality - for that would entail a contradiction;
This “totality” cannot have caused itself, so it must be caused by something that is outside this totality. If something is outside the totality of caused things it must not be a caused thing; in the same way that something outside the totality of red things must not be red

Fourthly - Thus, the extra-total cause itself must be predicated by a lack of prior causation essentially
An intrinsic part of this external cause is that it is NOT caused (see above)

Fifthly - for else it must be an element of the composite of the totality of caused things etc
If this external thing WAS caused this is a contradition - something cannot both be caused and NOT part of the totality of caused things.

So - An extra-total (totality of contingent essence) cause exists.

Now, I can formulate this in regards to reality - we percieve things that are caused; I plant a seed and a vegetable grows - this vegetable is a caused thing. This vegetable and all other vegetables etc. are caused things, this an every other caused thing belong to a totality of caused things. This totality is finite - because an infinite cannot be created by 1+1+1+1 etc. - it will never be infinite. Now, then this totality must be caused by something UNCaused (see above) - there we have our creator.

 

[Luke_K]

I’d be happy too (although it’s not Thomistic - it is a different Scholastic, Scotus)

Firstly - an infinity of things that are essentially ordered is not possible.
This is so because of what is called an infinite regress

Secondly - and as the totality of caused things that are essentially predicated by causation is itself caused;
All caused things belong to a Finite group or “totality” of things which can be said to be caused. All “red” things belong to the totality of “red” things, like this all “caused” things belong to the totality of “caused” things.

Thirdly - it must so be caused by some cause which is exempt and distinct from this totality; for else then the former would be the cause of itself; for the totality of dependant things is cause; and distinctly not on anything belonging to that totality - for that would entail a contradiction;
This “totality” cannot have caused itself, so it must be caused by something that is outside this totality. If something is outside the totality of caused things it must not be a caused thing; in the same way that something outside the totality of red things must not be red

Fourthly - Thus, the extra-total cause itself must be predicated by a lack of prior causation essentially
An intrinsic part of this external cause is that it is NOT caused (see above)

Fifthly - for else it must be an element of the composite of the totality of caused things etc
If this external thing WAS caused this is a contradition - something cannot both be caused and NOT part of the totality of caused things.

So - An extra-total (totality of contingent essence) cause exists.

Now, I can formulate this in regards to reality - we percieve things that are caused; I plant a seed and a vegetable grows - this vegetable is a caused thing. This vegetable and all other vegetables etc. are caused things, this an every other caused thing belong to a totality of caused things. This totality is finite - because an infinite cannot be created by 1+1+1+1 etc. - it will never be infinite. Now, then this totality must be caused by something UNCaused (see above) - there we have our creator.

By “cause” it appears you mean to bring from non-existence to existence. Can you give me an example of something that is caused in this fashion other than the universe being created by God? Sure, the vegetable was “caused” in a sense, but the effect, the vegetable, is just a new arrangement of the matter-energy which at no time did not exist.

Let me put it bluntly: Why does the universe need a cause for its existence, since everything in it always has been, is, and always will be?

 

[coolduude]

Let me put it bluntly: Why does the universe need a cause for its existence, since everything in it always has been, is, and always will be?

Because the past is finite, not eternal (like God). Look at my proof on page 1. Logic proves that the past is finite, therefore it all started somewhere and there was ‘time’ (in a sense) before time. Now the future is a potential infinite, but we can’t be sure.

You ask “Can you point to a time when the universe did not exist?”

In a sense, you can. You can’t point to a measurable amount of time in the past (say, 15 billion years ago) and say “15 billion years ago, nothing existed. Then 1 billion years later, something did”, because you’re right when you say that time is a part of the universe.

However, you can say “There was (for lack of a better word) a ‘time’ when nothing existed”. By that, I mean that at some point before the past (before the past because the past is part of the universe.), nothing indeed did exist.

So I guess what this boils down to is that you can indeed point to a point before the creation of everything and say “look, there, nothing existed, then it did come into existence”.

Get it? Sort of confusing, I must say

 

[Luke_K]

Because the past is finite, not eternal (like God). Look at my proof on page 1. Logic proves that the past is finite, therefore it all started somewhere and there was ‘time’ (in a sense) before time. Now the future is a potential infinite, but we can’t be sure.

You ask “Can you point to a time when the universe did not exist?”

In a sense, you can. You can’t point to a measurable amount of time in the past (say, 15 billion years ago) and say “15 billion years ago, nothing existed. Then 1 billion years later, something did”, because you’re right when you say that time is a part of the universe.

However, you can say “There was (for lack of a better word) a ‘time’ when nothing existed”. By that, I mean that at some point before the past (before the past because the past is part of the universe.), nothing indeed did exist.

So I guess what this boils down to is that you can indeed point to a point before the creation of everything and say “look, there, nothing existed, then it did come into existence”.

Get it? Sort of confusing, I must say

I still think you’re extrapolating backwards when it doesn’t make sense to do so. You can talk about a time 20 billion years ago when the universe didn’t exist, but it’s meaningless with respect to reality.

“In a sense” and “For lack of a better word” isn’t going to cut it here. You’re still using the concept of time when it doesn’t apply.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The wording of these philosphical arguments confuses me since my background is in science and not philosophy. The way I understand it in my own mind is that the Big Bang happened and created our Universe. But God had to be the one to create the infinitely dense point of matter and energy and set everything in motion. Everything after the explosion has been cause and effect. What came before that, if anything, only God knows. I can’t wait to get to heaven and find out.

So God created the conditions that caused the big bang to occur, but we can never know from whence God came and have no observational evidence of God’s existence.

Why not just miss a step and say we don’t know what caused the big bang?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Otherwise you’ve just thrown a bunch of arbitrarily-defined words around that force a conclusion.

I’m glad I’m not the only one that’s noticed… A string of buzzwords does not equate to a cohesive argument…