Virtual Particles & Cause and Effect

[Mike_O]

pilchard:

You are not talking about causality here - you are really talking about contingency. This was my point exactly. We need to park the “First Cause” argument and employ instead the argument from contingency.

One and the same.

Something that is caused is contingent on that which causes it, and on and on back to the First Cause.

Virtual particles are the strongest challenge the atheist can mount to what is a perfecrly logical proof, and that challenge is easily dismissable.

 

[pilchard]

Mike O:

One and the same.

Something that is caused is contingent on that which causes it, and on and on back to the First Cause.

Virtual particles are the strongest challenge the atheist can mount to what is a perfecrly logical proof, and that challenge is easily dismissable.

Something that is caused is indeed contingent on that which casued it - but in the absence of a visible casue for virtual particles and in the absence of a scientific theory as to what might be the cause we are better off speaking of contingency rather than causality.

It may well be that contingency collapses to causality but if we didn’t have the words we couldn’t even ask the question.

I would ve unclined to define contingent negatively - in defining it as something which is “not necessary” - and in doing so I would leave open the question as to whether conginet is equivalent to “having been caused”. By doing this instead of reflecting on a line of carriages being pulled by an engine we reflect on the nature of mathematics - we reflect on the equation 2 + 2 = 4 and reflect that there is something unchangeable about such - there is a sense that such could not be otherwise. 2 + 2 could never be equal to 5. virtual particles on the other hand are not - as a matter of rational judgement - necessary - therefore they are contingent - and being contingent they are in need of an explaination. Indeed - everything in the universe is contingent and therefore - the universe as a whole is contingent - and therefore there must be a necessary being that explains it.

You see how this obviates the need for an observable or theoretical “cause” of virtual particles?

For this reason I think we should keep the concept of causlity / first cause and contingent / necessary distinct.

The First Cause argument and the arguument from contingency should be kept distinct - even though it may be true - as you suggest - that contingency and “being caused” are one and the same (though I’m not sure myself - virtual particles might for example be uncaused but neertheless contingent - any pair of virtual particles could have not existed)