The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

[rossum]

Well, that’s another way of saying that cause and effect are simultaneous. I don’t agree with the “not possible” part though.

The cause cannot exist before it exists, obviously. A non-existent cause connot have any effects, obviously. The cause must come after the effect, because the cause has to actually exist in order to cause the effect. Hence cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. The cause must exist at least one instant before the effect.

My arm is resting on a cushioned chair arm right now, causing the cushioning to be depressed. Is the weight of my arm and the resulting effect of an indentation in the cushion an instance of simultaneous cause and effect?

The weight of your arm existed before you placed it on the arm of the chair. The weight and the indentation are not simultaneous.

What about the EPR Paradox?

Be very careful about getting into the area of quantum mechanics. A lot of the standard assumptions of logic break down. There are uncaused events, and time can in many cases run as easily backwards as forwards. That can make it difficult to determine what is the ‘correct’ direction of time in a particular instance.

Unless the cause is timelessly eternal.

Then the effect is timelessly eternal as well, since the cause is present for a timeless eternity. If cause → effect and the cause is present for all values of time, then the effect is also present for all values of time.

rossum

 

[Anselm33]

P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
This is a basic metaphysical principle on which much of science relies. The goal of science is to find sufficient reasons for why things are so. If things came into existence for no reason, then science would be destroyed.

It depends on what you mean by explanation. There is the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem (to the effect that quantum entities have free will if we do) that has been interpreted to negate Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason. That is to say, what will happen in some types of quantum measurements can not be predicted on the basis of past history of the system or of the observer, which is to say that the explanation for what will occur will only be a partial explanation. So the premise above, which seems self-evident, may not be so.

 

[Anselm33]

I

A quantum vacuum.

What are you saying about a quantum vacuum? As a physicist, I will maintain that a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. Moreover, a quantum vacuum is a construct–what reality it has now has to do with the validity of quantum mechanical theory. Whatever processes occur as explained by quantum mechanical theory do not require labeling the entities involved as causal agents. A quark is not a causal agent for a fundamental particle. A virtual photon is not a causal agent for an electromagnetic field…etc.

 

[belorg]

What are you saying about a quantum vacuum? As a physicist, I will maintain that a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”.

I don’t claim that a QV is nothing, Anselm.

Moreover, a quantum vacuum is a construct–what reality it has now has to do with the validity of quantum mechanical theory.

I am not sure I understand this.

Whatever processes occur as explained by quantum mechanical theory do not require labeling the entities involved as causal agents. A quark is not a causal agent for a fundamental particle. A virtual photon is not a causal agent for an electromagnetic field…etc.

I do not claim they are causal agents.

 

[Anselm33]

I don’t claim that a QV is nothing, Anselm.

I am not sure I understand this.

I do not claim they are causal agents.

OK, I apologize for misinterpreting you–I was trying to counter what I thought you implied by your comment. What exactly was your point in mentioning “quantum vacuum”?

 

[tdgesq]

The cause cannot exist before it exists, obviously.

That is a truism. So it is true.

A non-existent cause connot have any effects, obviously

.
No doubt about that.

The cause must come after the effect, because the cause has to actually exist in order to cause the effect.

I agree that the cause must exist to produce the effect. But from that it doesn’t follow that the cause must occur before the effect. You need at least two premises in order to have a valid conclusion. You only have one: “the cause has to actually exist in order to cause the effect.”

Hence cause and effect cannot be simultaneous.

This is just a restatement of your conclusion. Where is the other premise?

The cause must exist at least one instant before the effect.

Perhaps this is the other premise; the problem being that the truth of this is precisely what I deny. To restate it is to simply beg the question. What evidence do you have that a cause of an effect must temporally proceed the effect?

The weight of your arm existed before you placed it on the arm of the chair. The weight and the indentation are not simultaneous.

No, my arm is the cause of the effect of indentation. It is true that my arm existed before it was placed on the chair. It was ultimately the function of other causes (most fundamentally procreation by my parents), but I’m not talking about more distant causes of the indentation in the chair. I’m talking about the immediate cause of the indentation in the chair.

We can discuss the causes that led to my arm resting on the chair, but that isn’t going to tell us what the immediate cause of the indentation is. At t=1, my arm is resting on the chair. At t=1 there is an indentation in the cushion of the chair. What is the immediate cause of the indentation at t=1? My arm. What is the effect at t=1? The indentation. The cause and the effect at t=1 are simultaneous. It would be bizarre indeed to claim that my arm is not currently (immediately) causing the indentation.

Be very careful about getting into the area of quantum mechanics. A lot of the standard assumptions of logic break down. There are uncaused events, and time can in many cases run as easily backwards as forwards. That can make it difficult to determine what is the ‘correct’ direction of time in a particular instance.

I agree with you that the ontological interpretation of quantum phenomena is tricky business. I only bring it up for those who insist on a certain interpretation regarding action at a distance. Fair enough.

Then the effect is timelessly eternal as well, since the cause is present for a timeless eternity. If cause → effect and the cause is present for all values of time, then the effect is also present for all values of time.

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of eternity I am using. If eternity equaled time stretching infinitely into the past, then I might agree with you. Notice that I used the term “timelessly eternal.” The way I am using the term means that eternity equals no time. If the timeless act of the creation of time and the universe (cause) is simultaneous with the existence of time and the universe (effect), it does not entail that the effect is timelessly eternal as well. Why? Because what is created is time, and with it the universe. A cause from “no time” to an effect of “time” does not require, and I don’t think is even capable of being conceived of without contradiction, as “no time” or even an infinite past.

It is legitimate to ask: why does a timeless cause render an effect that appears to us to be 13.7 billion years old, rather than a much older universe? Craig’s answer to this is that God is personal. It is He who decided the boundaries of time and the related existence of the universe. Whether you find that a satisfactory answer or not, the question is not limited to theists. If there is a more reasonable explanation, then I would certainly like to see it.

 

[belorg]

OK, I apologize for misinterpreting you–I was trying to counter what I thought you implied by your comment. What exactly was your point in mentioning “quantum vacuum”?

My point was simply that a quantum vacuum does not (fully) determine its outcome. IOW that if a QV (or something similar) were necessary, it would not follow that it leads to the same outcome in every possible world.

 

[rossum]

I agree that the cause must exist to produce the effect. But from that it doesn’t follow that the cause must occur before the effect. You need at least two premises in order to have a valid conclusion. You only have one: “the cause has to actually exist in order to cause the effect.”

Consider the instant of time before the effect arises. If the cause does not exist in that instant of time, then we agree that the cause cannot have any effect. Hence no effect that arises in the next instant of time can have been caused by that particular cause, since it did not exist.

If you allow simultaneous appearance of cause and effect, then how do you determine which is cause and which is effect. Since they both appear simultaneously there is no way to distinguish between them. We agree that parents are the cause and the child is the effect because the parents exist before the child. Priority in time indicates the cause. If the two appear simultaneously: three babies say. How do you tell which two babies are the patents and which baby is the child? Temporal priority distinguished cause from effect. If there is no temporal priority then we cannot distinguish cause from effect.

Perhaps this is the other premise; the problem being that the truth of this is precisely what I deny. To restate it is to simply beg the question. What evidence do you have that a cause of an effect must temporally proceed the effect?

Because a cause that does not yet exist cannot have any effect. The cause has to be in existence before it can have any effect.

We can discuss the causes that led to my arm resting on the chair, but that isn’t going to tell us what the immediate cause of the indentation is. At t=1, my arm is resting on the chair. At t=1 there is an indentation in the cushion of the chair. What is the immediate cause of the indentation at t=1? My arm. What is the effect at t=1? The indentation. The cause and the effect at t=1 are simultaneous. It would be bizarre indeed to claim that my arm is not currently (immediately) causing the indentation.

Your arm moves. At some point in time the distance between your arm and the undisturbed cushion is zero. Your arm is still supported by your muscles, not by the cushion. Hence the arm resting exists one instant (depending on how fast your arm is moving) before the indentation.

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of eternity I am using. If eternity equaled time stretching infinitely into the past, then I might agree with you. Notice that I used the term “timelessly eternal.” The way I am using the term means that eternity equals no time.

Then no “timelessly eternal” being can ever create anything. If there is no time, then there is no “before”, since “before” is measured in terms of time, and in the absence of time there can be no measurement in terms of time. You cannot say “God existed before creation”, because the word “before” has no meaning. You might as well say, “God existed urekonege creation” which makes just as much sense.

It is legitimate to ask: why does a timeless cause render an effect that appears to us to be 13.7 billion years old, rather than a much older universe? Craig’s answer to this is that God is personal. It is He who decided the boundaries of time and the related existence of the universe. Whether you find that a satisfactory answer or not, the question is not limited to theists. If there is a more reasonable explanation, then I would certainly like to see it.

You now have two distinct entities. God, who is “eternally timeless”, and God’s-personal-decision, which is not eternally timeless. Since one single entity cannot be both eternally timeless and not eternally timeless, we obviously have two different entities here. You now need to explain the origin of the G-p-d entity. You, and Craig, have an infinite regress. The step from your timeless entity to something that can act within time is not easy, and has caused a great many problems philosophically.

rossum

 

[Anselm33]

My point was simply that a quantum vacuum does not (fully) determine its outcome. IOW that if a QV (or something similar) were necessary, it would not follow that it leads to the same outcome in every possible world.

I’m not familiar with text-speak…what does “IOW” mean? And I agree, that by the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, a quantum vacuum does not lead to the same outcome in every possible world. But what does that have to do with Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (with which I don’t entirely agree, by the way)? I’m not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand.

 

[rossum]

I’m not familiar with text-speak…what does “IOW” mean?

IOW = “in other words”.

HTH (HTH = “hope that helps”. )

rossum

 

[belorg]

I’m not familiar with text-speak…what does “IOW” mean? And I agree, that by the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, a quantum vacuum does not lead to the same outcome in every possible world. But what does that have to do with Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (with which I don’t entirely agree, by the way)? I’m not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand.

CatholicSoxFan was saying that a necessary cause always leads to a necssary effect, except in the case of agent causation. I used the example of quantum mechanics to show that agent causation is not the only possibility.

 

[belorg]

You now have two distinct entities. God, who is “eternally timeless”, and God’s-personal-decision, which is not eternally timeless. Since one single entity cannot be both eternally timeless and not eternally timeless, we obviously have two different entities here. You now need to explain the origin of the G-p-d entity. You, and Craig, have an infinite regress. The step from your timeless entity to something that can act within time is not easy, and has caused a great many problems philosophically.

rossum

I don’t think your claim that causality requires temporal priority is provable, rossum. Ijn your last paragraph, however, you hit the nail on the head. If God is timelessly eternal, then everything about God is timelessly eternal, including his decision, which means that whatever is the result of God’s decision, is timelelessly eternal too.

 

[levinas12]

…The step from your timeless entity to something that can act within time is not easy, and has caused a great many problems philosophically.

Yes, and you may be politely understating the issue.

Certainly, Aristotle would have been perplexed.

Maybe Heidegger was onto something when he suggested that time is the horizon of Being. Which led Jean-Luc Marion to declare that God is “without being”.

But this is a topic for another thread.

 

[Anselm33]

CatholicSoxFan was saying that a necessary cause always leads to a necssary effect, except in the case of agent causation. I used the example of quantum mechanics to show that agent causation is not the only possibility.

And the Conway-Kochen Free Will theorem shows you are correct. Still, for my own edification, what does IOW mean?

 

[levinas12]

Yes, and you may be politely understating the issue.

Certainly, Aristotle would have been perplexed.

Maybe Heidegger was onto something when he suggested that time is the horizon of Being. Which led Jean-Luc Marion to declare that God is “without being”.

But this is a topic for another thread.

I am going to start another thread about whether metaphysical categories can be applied to God. But permit me this clarification.

“Being” as understood within metaphysics is very much caught up with “world” and “time”. “to be” is “to be present”, here, now, in the world. Since “being” is defined in terms of “presence”, we can say that “time” is the horizon of “being”.

But God is “outside” the world, is “outside time”.

If the categories of metaphysics (being, substance, causality) are really “worldly” and “temporal” (caught up with “presence”), then they cannot apply to God without becoming problematic.

For example, think of describing God as a substance. If God were a substance, then He would be one entitiy among others. But Thomistic metaphysics asserts that this is not the case.

“Causality” is another problem area. How can a “timeless” cause operate in “time” without itself being “temporal”?

This is why Marion talks about God “without Being” - what he means is that metaphysics is plagued with antinomies and paradoxes when its categories are applied to God (even when the categories are applied “analogously”).

 

[tdgesq]

Consider the instant of time before the effect arises.

Okay. Effect arises at t=2. Moment before effect at t=1.

If the cause does not exist in that instant of time, then we agree that the cause cannot have any effect.

Actually, we don’t agree on that. This is what you keep saying over and over without any logical demonstration. I understand exactly what you are claiming: If the cause does not exist at t=1, then the effect cannot exist a t=2. But that’s just a bare claim.

Hence no effect that arises in the next instant of time can have been caused by that particular cause, since it did not exist.

Just saying the same thing again in a different way: No effect can arise at t=2, since the cause did not exist at t=1. See. Do you actually have a logical demonstration that shows the impossibility of a cause existing at t=2 and the effect existing at t=2? Things exist simultaneously all the time. There is no logical contradiction between a cause and it’s effect existing simultaneously. In fact, Aristotle and Aquinas both insisted that the immediate efficient cause of an effect must be simultaneous.

If you allow simultaneous appearance of cause and effect, then how do you determine which is cause and which is effect.

Because in many instances (not all by any means) there is a clear prior temporal chain of events that lead to the effect. However, the immediate (proximate) cause of the effect is still simultaneous. There is a much better explanation though that I give below.

Since they both appear simultaneously there is no way to distinguish between them. We agree that parents are the cause and the child is the effect because the parents exist before the child.

Yes, looking back to more remote causes in the chain informs us what is cause and what is effect. Yet I’m not talking about the prior causal chain. I’m talking about the immediate proximate cause of the effect; here that would be the child. More specifically from a biological perspective, the moment conjoined egg and sperm produce a division of cells. At the same moment in time a human zygote is formed. So while the parents of a child are a more remote prior cause to the child, they are not the immediate proximate cause. The immediate proximate cause of the child is simultaneous with the existence of the child, the human zygote. That this is the reality does not somehow make it impossible to distinguish between what was the immediate cause and the effect, and that’s true even if there were no prior identifiable causal chain.

The other reason we can distinguish between a simultaneous efficient cause and effect is because of the concept of “final cause.” Physical objects have a certain nature that precludes them from ever being the cause of certain effects. The conjoining of sperm and egg will never produce a tractor, or a rock, or a law of logic. We know this not because, well, we’ve just always observed that the timeline that produces children starts with two parents who copulate and later a child is born. The egg and sperm simply don’t have the chemical/non-physical material to create tractors and rocks and laws of thought. It isn’t part of their nature. So there is more than one way to delineate cause from effect, despite the reality of simultaneous cause and effect.

Because a cause that does not yet exist cannot have any effect. The cause has to be in existence before it can have any effect.

You say this, but have not demonstrated it. All you have shown is that there are prior more remote causes to the immediate cause.

Your arm moves. At some point in time the distance between your arm and the undisturbed cushion is zero. Your arm is still supported by your muscles, not by the cushion. Hence the arm resting exists one instant (depending on how fast your arm is moving) before the indentation.

I agree with this, so far as it goes. You are correct that there were prior causes to my arm resting on the chair. And you are correct that my muscles were one such cause immediately prior to my placing it on the chair and the resulting indentation. Notice, you assiduously avoid the moment that the indentation occurs on the chair. What is the cause at that moment in time? My arm. And the resulting indentation is simultaneous with it.

Let’s suppose I’m Rip Van Winkle. My arm has been resting on the chair for 80 years in the same position. Are you insisting that the immediate cause of the indentation 80 years later is the moment 80 years prior, right before my arm rested on the chair?! That would be absurd. The immediate cause of the indentation 80 years later is my arm simultaneously causing the indentation. And once I lift it, the indentation is gone - supposing a very springy cushion.

 

[tdgesq]

. . .continued

Then no “timelessly eternal” being can ever create anything. If there is no time, then there is no “before”, since “before” is measured in terms of time, and in the absence of time there can be no measurement in terms of time.

This objection only works if your presupposition is correct: that a cause must temporally precede an effect. I have shown above that your presupposition is incorrect. So no, I’m not proposing that God caused the universe temporally prior to its existence. God’s act of creation was simultaneous with the existence of the universe.

You cannot say “God existed before creation”, because the word “before” has no meaning. You might as well say, “God existed urekonege creation” which makes just as much sense.

Since I’m not saying that, there isn’t a problem.

You now have two distinct entities. God, who is “eternally timeless”, and God’s-personal-decision, which is not eternally timeless.

That is not what I propose. I propose that God’s decision is eternally timeless. What is that decision? To create a universe at t=0, which to us today appears billions of years old.

You now need to explain the origin of the G-p-d entity. You, and Craig, have an infinite regress.

We do? And all this time I thought the assertion of an uncaused timeless immaterial cause broke the infinite regress. Of course, we never get there as long as you insist without any demonstration that simultaneous cause and effect are logically impossible.

 

[belorg]

And the Conway-Kochen Free Will theorem shows you are correct. Still, for my own edification, what does IOW mean?

In other words.

 

[belorg]

That is not what I propose. I propose that God’s decision is eternally timeless. What is that decision? To create a universe at t=0, which to us today appears billions of years old.

What is the meaning of t=0 from a timelessly eternal point of view?
The problem is everything about God is timelessly eternal, not only God’s decision, but also God’s act of creation. So t=0 co-exists eternally with God’s decision, and, if t =0 appears 13.6 billion years ago to us, so does God’s decision.
So, the universe is necessarrily co-eternal with God.

 

[rossum]

Actually, we don’t agree on that.

We have agreed that a non-existent cause cannot have any effect. If cause and effect are simultaneous, as you claim, then how do you distinguish cause from effect? You cannot use temporal priority, but must use some other distinguisher. If you cannot distinguish, then you will have difficulty arguing about cause and effect, since you cannot tell them apart.

There is no logical contradiction between a cause and it’s effect existing simultaneously. In fact, Aristotle and Aquinas both insisted that the immediate efficient cause of an effect must be simultaneous.

I am using Nagarjuna’s logic here, not Aristotle’s or Aquinas’. A non-existent cause cannot cause anything. Hence, the cause must exist. Existence is divided into three phases: arising, sustaining and decay. The cause can only have an effect during the sustaining phase, because it is not present until after the arising phase.

Because in many instances (not all by any means) there is a clear prior temporal chain of events that lead to the effect.

Neither of us have an issue with a clear temporal sequence: cause before effect. The issue is where there is no temporal sequence and the events are simultaneous. How do you determine which is cause and which effect?

More specifically from a biological perspective, the moment conjoined egg and sperm produce a division of cells.

That is not simultaneous. There is a short, measurable, delay before cell division starts.

At the same moment in time a human zygote is formed.

There is no “moment”. A sperm reaches the egg. The sperm penetrates the egg, taking a little time to do so. The head of the sperm moves through the body of the egg to the nucleus, taking a little time to do so. The sperm head merges into the nucleus, taking a little time to do so. The DNA from the sperm combines with the DNA in the egg to produce the standard diploid human genome, taking a little time to do so.

So while the parents of a child are a more remote prior cause to the child, they are not the immediate proximate cause. The immediate proximate cause of the child is simultaneous with the existence of the child, the human zygote.

I disagree. According to your logic, a human placenta is a human child. I do not accept that.

rossum