Why does the first cause have to be God?

[epan]

To me there is no doubt that there is a first cause instead of an infinite regress, but why does this cause have to be an intelligent, personal, and loving God?

It’s purely a matter of faith. The standard argument, which is actually irrefutable, is that if one justifies belief in God by claiming that anything as complex as the Universe must have a supernatural creator, then of course it follows that the creator itself is much more complex than the Universe, and obviously must also have a creator, if the same logic applies.

The first cause argument goes ad infinitum.

 

[ilikepizza1]

It’s purely a matter of faith.

No, it’s not “purely a matter of faith.” It is argued for and deduced from first principles. One may disagree with the argument and/or the reasoning employed, but to imply that the attributes ascribed to God are done so solely on faith and without rational justification isn’t accurate.

The standard argument, which is actually irrefutable, is that if one justifies belief in God by claiming that anything as complex as the Universe must have a supernatural creator, then of course it follows that the creator itself is much more complex than the Universe, and obviously must also have a creator, if the same logic applies.

The first cause argument goes ad infinitum.

This “argument from complexity” is of course not very good, however the original/standard cosmological arguments do not rest upon the perceived amount of complexity in the universe.

 

[epan]

No, it’s not “purely a matter of faith.” It is argued for and deduced from first principles. One may disagree with the argument and/or the reasoning employed, but to imply that the attributes ascribed to God are done so solely on faith and without rational justification isn’t accurate.

This “argument from complexity” is of course not very good, however the original/standard cosmological arguments do not rest upon the perceived amount of complexity in the universe.

You do understand, I assume, that the deduced conclusion does not hold when logic is applied to the argument. If the universe requires a first cause, then so does the entity that causes it, and so on. It is pretty simple, and devastating to the first cause deduction.

 

[DrTaffy]

I think the problem may be with the understanding of the word ‘cause’.

It is, and I don’t know why, as I have (I think) been very explicit about what I mean by “cause and effect” in this thread.

I am addressing the argument often made that every event is caused by a previous event and as an infinite regress of events is rejected as ‘illogical’ there must be a first event that was not caused by a previous event “…and we call this God.” An argument which fails on many levels.

Now apologists often conflate this argument with other “arguments from the first cause” such as the contingency argument, but I think this just muddles things. It is better to discuss this argument and (for example) the contingency argument seperately and on their own merits - unless you are deliberately using the confusion as a rhetorical trick to avoid admitting that one such argument does not work, which I hope we all agree would be dishonest and pointless.

Getting back to the radioactive decay argument, spontaneous generation/emission cannot be said to be uncaused causation as that which exists has the potential to decay as part of what it is, rather it is the cause is wrapped up with what it is to be a radioactive element. The element exists and as a result of its existence undergoes radioactive decay.

Again, you confuse two things from very different categories. The potential that must exist for an event to occur, and the trigger (if any) that causes that potentiality to become actuality.

In the case of spontaneous radioactive decay, according to Quantum Mechanics, there is no triggering event.

Now my understanding of vacuum particle pair creation is admitidly limited(its been a number of years since I’ve last glanced at atomic orbitals), but don’t they usually require an interaction between a nucleus and a proton or some such?

Um… no. You may be thinking of quantum field theory where virtual particles act as mediators for interactions between other perticles.

Vacuum particle pairs just pop in and out of existence.

If we can observe a motion beginning, we can rightly assume that there is some efficient cause, whether internal or external to the moving substance, regardless of whether or not we can discern what that cause is.

That’s the assertion made by the first cause argument, and apparently contradicted by quantum mechanical events such as spontaneous radioactive decay or particle generation. What “efficient cause” do you propose that would not have been ruled out by previous attempts to justify a “hidden variable” explanation.

If nothing else QM offers a very detailed, mathematically precise, model of a possible universe where the assertion that every event has a triggering event is not true.

Vacuum is space devoid of matter, but not necessarily energy or ‘dark matter’, and on top of this, perfect vacuum is largely theoretical – a possibility, but not obtainable in a lab environment. When I discuss a ‘material cause’, I don’t just mean matter as modern physicists refer to, but ‘prime matter’, which includes all physical entities: dark matter, energy, virtual particles, etc. (I assume that you are referring to virtual particles.)

I’m not sure what your point is - are you claiming that ‘dark matter’ might be causing quantum events such as spontaneous decay? If so, see the hidden variable link above.

 

[Theophorus]

It is, and I don’t know why, as I have (I think) been very explicit about what I mean by “cause and effect” in this thread.

I am addressing the argument often made that every event is caused by a previous event and as an infinite regress of events is rejected as ‘illogical’ there must be a first event that was not caused by a previous event “…and we call this God.” An argument which fails on many levels.

I do understand now what you are suggesting, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with such a limitation. Causality, “cause and effect” includes all four of the causes, not just the material and efficient ones. The ‘motion’ refereed to in the first way of Aquinas, is obviously not simple locomotion, but any reduction of potency to act. First and foremost in the composite beings we see in the world around us. The attempt to limit it to material or efficient causality does not do justice to the arguments presented. The natural inclination(towards perfection/the becoming more fully in act) of a thing flows from its form. The spontaneous(rather than uncaused) radioactive decay flows from the form of the thing(I will not get into “all agents acting for an end” to much but it is what we refer to as the ‘natural appetite’ of a non-sensitive thing being the proximate mover, the proximate cause of the thing in question.)There is no confusion in this motion from potency to act in relation to formal causality.

Again, you confuse two things from very different categories. The potential that must exist for an event to occur, and the trigger (if any) that causes that potentiality to become actuality.

In the case of spontaneous radioactive decay, according to Quantum Mechanics, there is no triggering event.

Um… no. You may be thinking of quantum field theory where virtual particles act as mediators for interactions between other perticles.

Vacuum particle pairs just pop in and out of existence.

That’s the assertion made by the first cause argument, and apparently contradicted by quantum mechanical events such as spontaneous radioactive decay or particle generation. What “efficient cause” do you propose that would not have been ruled out by previous attempts to justify a “hidden variable” explanation.

If nothing else QM offers a very detailed, mathematically precise, model of a possible universe where the assertion that every event has a triggering event is not true.

I’m not sure what your point is - are you claiming that ‘dark matter’ might be causing quantum events such as spontaneous decay? If so, see the hidden variable link above.

Well, I’ll have to update my knowledge in this area when I get the chance, apologies for my inexperience in this area and any confusion it may have caused.

 

[Love4All]

You do understand, I assume, that the deduced conclusion does not hold when logic is applied to the argument. If the universe requires a first cause, then so does the entity that causes it, and so on. It is pretty simple, and devastating to the first cause deduction.

Wrong. The Argument from Complexity assumes that anything complex cannot arise from anything simple, but rather must come into being from something yet more complex. That is fallacious; God is Simple. Ergo, the First Cause is Simple. Being entirely Simple, it is impossible that there should be a complex cause.

Dawkins is not the sharpest knife in the rack.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You do understand, I assume, that the deduced conclusion does not hold when logic is applied to the argument. If the universe requires a first cause, then so does the entity that causes it, and so on. It is pretty simple, and devastating to the first cause deduction.

Whether or not the universe is eternal or finite, it has to have a First Cause which is absolutely other than the universe and which is absolutely Pure Act - but an Infinitely Powerful, Intelligent, Good, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Living Pure Act. This has been proven by St. Thomas many ways but primarily and most famously by his Five Ways.

Of course many have rejected such proofs - for private and alterior motives. But the fact remains, a contingent, limited universe must have such a First Cause, even if the universe is assumed to be eternal. Otherwise the universe does not exist. But the universe does exist. Therefore such a First Cause must exist. And this we call God - as described above. And this is indeed the Christian God for only one such God could exist.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

I do understand now what you are suggesting, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with such a limitation. Causality, “cause and effect” includes all four of the causes, not just the material and efficient ones.

It is not a limitation, but a differentiation. The ‘cause and effect’ chains of events triggering other events is a fundamentally different relationship from one thing being logically dependent on something else.

Just because Aristotle called them all ‘causes’ in order to differentiate between them in no way justifies confusing them - quite the opposite. For that matter Aristotle’s word ‘aition’ doesn’t really mean the same as ‘cause’ IMO. More like ‘explanation of origin’ I would argue.

If you need to confuse categories in order to defend your argument, what does that say about it’s basic solidity as an argument?

The assertion that “every event is triggered by a previous event” does indeed lead to an infinite regress. But then:

1. It is not clear what is wrong with that. If an infinite regress of events into the past is impossible, is the same true of an infinite progress into the future? Do we conclude that there are a finite number of events, eventually leading to a stagnant universe in absolute stasis?
2. If there is a contradiction in an infinite regress, the only conclusion you can draw is that the original hypothesis is false - that there is a class of events that are not triggered by previous events. Not necessarily that there is only one event “and we call that eventconfused ‘God’”

The argument(s) from logical connections are very different, and I would have different objections to them. For example, very briefly, if you argue that ‘spontaneous’ particle decay or creation is ‘caused by’ the laws of Quantum Mechanics, then it is far from obvious that any infinite regress occurs from that sort of dependency. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are unchanged by any single instance of decay/creation, so you have your unmoved mover right there, and no obvious need for those laws to be ‘caused by’ anything in the same way that they ‘caused’ the decay/creation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I do understand now what you are suggesting, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with such a limitation. Causality, “cause and effect” includes all four of the causes, not just the material and efficient ones. The ‘motion’ refereed to in the first way of Aquinas, is obviously not simple locomotion, but any reduction of potency to act. First and foremost in the composite beings we see in the world around us. The attempt to limit it to material or efficient causality does not do justice to the arguments presented. The natural inclination(towards perfection/the becoming more fully in act) of a thing flows from its form. The spontaneous(rather than uncaused) radioactive decay flows from the form of the thing(I will not get into “all agents acting for an end” to much but it is what we refer to as the ‘natural appetite’ of a non-sensitive thing being the proximate mover, the proximate cause of the thing in question.)There is no confusion in this motion from potency to act in relation to formal causality.

Well, I’ll have to update my knowledge in this area when I get the chance, apologies for my inexperience in this area and any confusion it may have caused.

You are doing fine. Some people like to introduce special knowledge only available to physicists because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent. The activity of atomic and sub-atomic particles may seem random but that is only because we cannot perceive the cause of these events. Obviously they are operating according to some type of physical law. That is they are being caused here and now by some law writen into their natures by the Author of all laws, the First Cause.

St. Thomas will answer all questions. And you do not have to be a physicist to understand genuine causality. And you seem to understand it. Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

You are doing fine. Some people like to introduce special knowledge only available to physicists because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent.

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to theologans because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent’ - how often have I seen christians say "oh, go read Summa Theologica’?

On the other hand the Wikipedia article on Hidden Variables is accessibly written (in English, not Latin) and should be ‘available’ to any fluent english speaker.

The activity of atomic and sub-atomic particles may seem random but that is only because we cannot perceive the cause of these events. Obviously they are operating according to some type of physical law. That is they are being caused here and now by some law writen into their natures by the Author of all laws, the First Cause.

Nope - that is explicitly covered by the ‘Hidden Variable’ link. if you don’t understand it, fine, but that does not justify sneering at those that do.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to theologans because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent’ - how often have I seen christians say "oh, go read Summa Theologica’?

On the other hand the Wikipedia article on Hidden Variables is accessibly written (in English, not Latin) and should be ‘available’ to any fluent english speaker.

Nope - that is explicitly covered by the ‘Hidden Variable’ link. if you don’t understand it, fine, but that does not justify sneering at those that do.

I apologize for " sneering, " it is just that that particular argument ( of yours ) is an old one. The falacy is that just because one cannot see the cause does not mean that there is no cause. Obviously, the more we bore into the nano building blocks of nature the harder it will be to see the immediate secondary causes. But Thomas shows us that nature is of a piece. Since cause and effect is apparant in the more measureable and larger elelments of existence, one must assume that the pattern holds even for the nano universe.

To assume the contrary is unjustified.

" God does not play at dice, " ( Albert Einstein ). Linus2nd

 

[Theophorus]

It is not a limitation, but a differentiation. The ‘cause and effect’ chains of events triggering other events is a fundamentally different relationship from one thing being logically dependent on something else.

Just because Aristotle called them all ‘causes’ in order to differentiate between them in no way justifies confusing them - quite the opposite. For that matter Aristotle’s word ‘aition’ doesn’t really mean the same as ‘cause’ IMO. More like ‘explanation of origin’ I would argue.

If you need to confuse categories in order to defend your argument, what does that say about it’s basic solidity as an argument?

The assertion that “every event is triggered by a previous event” does indeed lead to an infinite regress. But then:

1. It is not clear what is wrong with that. If an infinite regress of events into the past is impossible, is the same true of an infinite progress into the future? Do we conclude that there are a finite number of events, eventually leading to a stagnant universe in absolute stasis?
2. If there is a contradiction in an infinite regress, the only conclusion you can draw is that the original hypothesis is false - that there is a class of events that are not triggered by previous events. Not necessarily that there is only one event “and we call that eventconfused ‘God’”

The argument(s) from logical connections are very different, and I would have different objections to them. For example, very briefly, if you argue that ‘spontaneous’ particle decay or creation is ‘caused by’ the laws of Quantum Mechanics, then it is far from obvious that any infinite regress occurs from that sort of dependency. The laws of Quantum Mechanics are unchanged by any single instance of decay/creation, so you have your unmoved mover right there, and no obvious need for those laws to be ‘caused by’ anything in the same way that they ‘caused’ the decay/creation.

My argument from causation remains firmly on the ontological level, what I am saying it that to reduce causation in the metaphysical argument for a first cause to material cause(literally in aristotle’ Metaphysics: that from which) or efficent cause(lit:that by which) without considering formal cause(lit:the what-it-was-to-be-for-the-thing) or final cause(lit:that for the sake of which) or to try to show uncaused causation without considering all four causes is a limitation which does not do the argument justice. I’m not confusing categories, I’m simply bringing metaphysical terminology to a metaphysical argument.

The assertion that “every event is triggered by a previous event” does indeed lead to an infinite regress.

No it leads to the requirement for a first cause which causes the change from potency to act of beings. Potential alone cannot account for beings in act, the must be put in act by something in already in act. If all being is contingent, and comes to be and passes away, there would be a time when there was only potency and no act, and with nothing in act to cause motion(not just locomotion but motion as change) there would be nothing in act.(This clearly uses the logical level but with an ontological foundation).This is the problem of regressus ad infinitum, but I don’t see how it automatically holds for progressus ad infinitum though, as it deals with first cause.

A seperate problem would be that if there were an infinity of causes in a chain going forward then nothing would ever get done, or actually get in act (a bit like xeno’s paradox with the arrow. this is an analogy rather than example), that we can act for an end, that we can see when something like the fact that we’ve reached a destination(even geograpically) suggests we can reach our end without recourse to infinite causation. As for cosmological *progressus ad infinitum * and finite numbers of events, I think that the jury is still out on the role of entropy in the cosmos.

 

[DrTaffy]

I apologize for " sneering, " it is just that that particular argument ( of yours ) is an old one. The falacy is that just because one cannot see the cause does not mean that there is no cause.

Well, apology accepted on face value, although (if I may offer advice) it would look more sincere if not immediately followed by another criticism of scientists in their own field of expertise.

To be blunt, there are many scientists, and one or two of them are actually quite intelligent and educated people. So they have in fact considered the ‘falacy’(sic) you raise and done so in some depth - they call it the “hidden variable” problem and it is in fact the issue convered in depth by the link I posted earlier. As I said earlier I think it is quite accessible to anyone with good english, so do please try reading it.

My argument from causation remains firmly on the ontological level,

In which case it is not the one I was referring to. As I thought I had explained in detail earlier. Unless you and I mean something quite different by “the ontological level”.

So what are we doing? Are you responding to my earlier posts or opening a whole new topic?

what I am saying it that to reduce causation in the metaphysical argument for a first cause to material cause(literally in aristotle’ Metaphysics: that from which) or efficent cause(lit:that by which) without considering formal cause(lit:the what-it-was-to-be-for-the-thing) or final cause(lit:that for the sake of which) or to try to show uncaused causation without considering all four causes is a limitation which does not do the argument justice.

a) I am familiar with Aristotle’s four causes, thank you, and that is a very opaque explanation of them. I would advise anyone reading this who is not familiar with them to google “Aristotle’s four causes”
b) Which argument? The argument I am referring to explicitly refers to the chain of causality - one event triggering another. To try to conflate this with Aristotle’s four causes seems hard to justify unless deliberate obfustication is the aim.

I’m not confusing categories, I’m simply bringing metaphysical terminology to a metaphysical argument.

If you are conflating the dynamic event that triggers another event with the potential that enables the second event, then yes, you are explicitly confusing categories.

DrTaffy;10713225:

The assertion that “every event is triggered by a previous event” does indeed lead to an infinite regress.

No it leads to the requirement for a first cause which causes the change from potency to act of beings.

Oh come on, of course it does. Trivially.

Consider your “first event” - whether that is the “first cause” you assert or the first event triggered by the “first cause”. Either it is caused by a previous “event” (in which case it is not the “first event”) or it is not - in which case it violates the original axiom “every event is triggered by a previous event.”

If you can’t see that, we are done.

A possible loophole is a causal loop - but I would see that as an example of an infinite regress, which also asserts a finite number of events. Worst of both worlds.

This is the problem of regressus ad infinitum, but I don’t see how it automatically holds for progressus ad infinitum though, as it deals with first cause.

Since I have yet to see the explicit argument against what you call regressus ad infinitum, I can’t argue why that should apply to progressus ad infinitum - all I can say is that I can’t see why it shouldn’t. The laws of logic, far more than the laws of physics, are time reversible!

As for cosmological *progressus ad infinitum * and finite numbers of events, I think that the jury is still out on the role of entropy in the cosmos.

So what? A logical argument against an infinite chain of causality is totally different from one based on the laws of physics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, apology accepted on face value, although (if I may offer advice) it would look more sincere if not immediately followed by another criticism of scientists in their own field of expertise.

My criticism was well justified.

To be blunt, there are many scientists, and one or two of them are actually quite intelligent and educated people. So they have in fact considered the ‘falacy’(sic) you raise and done so in some depth - they call it the “hidden variable” problem and it is in fact the issue convered in depth by the link I posted earlier. As I said earlier I think it is quite accessible to anyone with good english, so do please try reading it.

And there have been and are many scientists, also very " intelligent and ecucated, " who have and continue to disagree with the various interpretations of the " Heisenberg theory of Quantum Mechanics. " His interpretation of the wave/particle characteristics of certain particles under observation, the " Uncertainty Principle " has been and will continue to be hotly debated by many brilliant scientists - pro and con. For me personally, it is obvious that " what you see " is " what you are looking for. " And it is quite clear that what is unknown is how much the apparatus of measurement itself effects the outcome.

But like I said, just because we can now observe and measure ( somewhat ) certain nano particles is no reason to presume they do not obey the general laws of causality - the four causes taught by Thomas Aquinas. If one is absolutely honest, if these causes hold true for the normal observable universe ( and Thomas shows that they do ), one must conclude logically that they also hold true in the nano universe, of which the observable universe is composed.

Below, you seem to be confusing " infinite regress " with an infinite series of accidental causes. St. Thomas uses the example of the smithy using an infinite number of hammers at his forge, one after the other. Of course this kind of causality is not what obtains in the real or " ontological " universe. The son is caused by the Father, who is caused by the Grandfather, who is caused by the Great Grandfather and back into the infinitude of time ( and for argument, I grant that this kind of infinite regress is indeed possible. ).

However, when St. Thomas is talking about First Cause, Efficient Cause, Cause of Existence, and Final Cause, he is not talking about infinite regress. Specifically, the cosmological arguments each deal with a Prime Cause, here and now, occuring simultaneously with all the contributing Secondary Causes to produce this particular Effect ( whatever it is ). And this is always what people fail to realize.

This means that every event, every thought, together with all their contributory Secondary Causes, occuring simultaneously, her and now throughout the universe, demand and require a First Unmoved Mover, a First Efficient Cause, a Cause of their existence, and a Final Cause ( that for which all acts happen and toward which all actions and thoughts tend).

But all this is purely accademic. Because in the end we are left with either a universe that has no explanation and has no meaning or one that God made for his own purposes. The first essentially means that the universe cannot exist. But it does exist, so God must exist as well.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

My criticism was well justified.

So why were you apologising? For that matter, what is the justification?

From my point of view (an outsider to Catholicism, but well versed in physics) you have not even tried to justify your criticism. Your ‘criticism’ was not only a classic “hidden variable” chestnut, but I had explicitly linked to a discussion of that chestnut shortly before, have already pointed that link out to you, and you have failed to address it.

And there have been and are many scientists, also very " intelligent and ecucated, " who have and continue to disagree with the various interpretations of the " Heisenberg theory of Quantum Mechanics. "

Top tip - don’t try to use jargon you don’t understand. I sympathise with those who object to self-proclaimed experts trying to “blind them with science” but not with those who respond by pretending to understand subjects they clearly do not.

Also, when quoting me, please don’t introduce spelling mistakes as though I had made them.

Cite these “scientists” and we’ll see if you have a point.

But like I said, just because we can now observe and measure ( somewhat ) certain nano particles is no reason to presume they do not obey the general laws of causality - the four causes taught by Thomas Aquinas. If one is absolutely honest, if these causes hold true for the normal observable universe ( and Thomas shows that they do ), one must conclude logically that they also hold true in the nano universe, of which the observable universe is composed.

Again, it’s best if you don’t refer to “nano particles” if you don’t know what that term means.

Furthermore, just because something appears to hold true at the macrocosmic scale but not at the quantum, subatomic scale does not mean that you “must conclude logically” that the macrosmic conclusions hold true at the subatomic scale despite appearances. At all. Not even remotely defensible.

If your argument relies on an assertion, you must prove that assertion to prove your argument. I don’t have to disprove it.

However, when St. Thomas is talking about First Cause, Efficient Cause, Cause of Existence, and Final Cause, he is not talking about infinite regress.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Sure, trivially, Aquinas talks about arguments other than the infinite regress of one event triggering another - what most people mean by “cause and effect.” I’m happy to discuss those arguments seperately from this one. If you can only defend this one by confusing it with other arguments, why not just drop it as a faulty argument?

Equally trivially, he does talk about that infinite regress argument. Explicitly!

Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset aliquod primum movens;

I’m also not sure why you appear to focus exclusively on Aquinas. Even if he had never made that argument, many others have done so.

But all this is purely accademic. Because in the end we are left with either a universe that has no explanation and has no meaning or one that God made for his own purposes.

So what is the ‘explanation’ or ‘meaning’ of God? You either slip into the (completely different) contingency argument or you are relying on special pleading.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So why were you apologising? For that matter, what is the justification?

From my point of view (an outsider to Catholicism, but well versed in physics) you have not even tried to justify your criticism. Your ‘criticism’ was not only a classic “hidden variable” chestnut, but I had explicitly linked to a discussion of that chestnut shortly before, have already pointed that link out to you, and you have failed to address it.

Top tip - don’t try to use jargon you don’t understand. I sympathise with those who object to self-proclaimed experts trying to “blind them with science” but not with those who respond by pretending to understand subjects they clearly do not.

Also, when quoting me, please don’t introduce spelling mistakes as though I had made them.

Cite these “scientists” and we’ll see if you have a point.

Again, it’s best if you don’t refer to “nano particles” if you don’t know what that term means.

Furthermore, just because something appears to hold true at the macrocosmic scale but not at the quantum, subatomic scale does not mean that you “must conclude logically” that the macrosmic conclusions hold true at the subatomic scale despite appearances. At all. Not even remotely defensible.

If your argument relies on an assertion, you must prove that assertion to prove your argument. I don’t have to disprove it.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Sure, trivially, Aquinas talks about arguments other than the infinite regress of one event triggering another - what most people mean by “cause and effect.” I’m happy to discuss those arguments seperately from this one. If you can only defend this one by confusing it with other arguments, why not just drop it as a faulty argument?

Equally trivially, he does talk about that infinite regress argument. Explicitly!

I’m also not sure why you appear to focus exclusively on Aquinas. Even if he had never made that argument, many others have done so.

So what is the ‘explanation’ or ‘meaning’ of God? You either slip into the (completely different) contingency argument or you are relying on special pleading.

My Dear Dr. Taffy, I don’t accept the terms of your argument. By your mode of argument only very educated and highly intellectual persons would be able to know that God exists or does not exist. That is why He chose to Reveal Himself to the " little ones " of this world. You and those like you call us fools for believing, well, O.K.,We will be called " fools " gladly, for the learned of this world called Christ a fool too. We rejoice to be worthy to be judged as was He.

P.S. You have not explained how it is that so many of your learned collegues, who clearly understand the Heisenberg Principle, are very devoute Christians and do think that the existence of God can be demonstrated many ways. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So why were you apologising? For that matter, what is the justification?

From my point of view (an outsider to Catholicism, but well versed in physics) you have not even tried to justify your criticism. Your ‘criticism’ was not only a classic “hidden variable” chestnut, but I had explicitly linked to a discussion of that chestnut shortly before, have already pointed that link out to you, and you have failed to address it.

Top tip - don’t try to use jargon you don’t understand. I sympathise with those who object to self-proclaimed experts trying to “blind them with science” but not with those who respond by pretending to understand subjects they clearly do not.

Also, when quoting me, please don’t introduce spelling mistakes as though I had made them.

Cite these “scientists” and we’ll see if you have a point.

Again, it’s best if you don’t refer to “nano particles” if you don’t know what that term means.

Furthermore, just because something appears to hold true at the macrocosmic scale but not at the quantum, subatomic scale does not mean that you “must conclude logically” that the macrosmic conclusions hold true at the subatomic scale despite appearances. At all. Not even remotely defensible.

If your argument relies on an assertion, you must prove that assertion to prove your argument. I don’t have to disprove it.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Sure, trivially, Aquinas talks about arguments other than the infinite regress of one event triggering another - what most people mean by “cause and effect.” I’m happy to discuss those arguments seperately from this one. If you can only defend this one by confusing it with other arguments, why not just drop it as a faulty argument?

Equally trivially, he does talk about that infinite regress argument. Explicitly!

I’m also not sure why you appear to focus exclusively on Aquinas. Even if he had never made that argument, many others have done so.

So what is the ‘explanation’ or ‘meaning’ of God? You either slip into the (completely different) contingency argument or you are relying on special pleading.

Since this format limits full, organized discussion I refer you to the following answer given by the Magis Center ( Fr. Robert Spitzer ). magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=God_is_Uncreated

Lengthy I admit, but your objections require it. The conclusion is that there must be a First Cause and it must be a God who is absolutely other than and transcendent to His effects. He is not a first cause in the current " linnear " understanding of scientific causality. He is not the first in a long line of cause and effect but the " here and now, " immediate, simultaneous cause of this particular effect - whatever it is, at every level of existence and activity taking place throughout the universe at this moment.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

My Dear Dr. Taffy, I don’t accept the terms of your argument.

What ‘terms’?

That you must prove an assertion to show that it is true, rather than making it and demanding that others accept its truth unless they can disprove it? That is the only ‘term’ I see in my post, and I have already given one good reason for it: if any assertion must be accepted unless disproven, I can ‘disprove’ it by merely asserting its falsehood, and that ‘disproof’ can be ‘disproven’ by asserting its falsehood and so on ad infinitum.

By your mode of argument only very educated and highly intellectual persons would be able to know that God exists or does not exist.

I have said nothing of the sort - on the contrary I have said that I think the discussion of Hidden Variables I linked to is quite accessible to people of only moderate intelligence and education. Furthermore, this discussion applies to only one aspect of one alleged ‘proof of God’.

What I do say is that when you are criticising a whole group of educated and intelligent people for not having considered a (rather naive) objection, and it is pointed out to you that that objection had been dealt with in detail, and that a link to that discussion had been posted just a few comments earlier, you really ought to read the discussion before repeating the criticism.

You and those like you call us fools for believing, well, O.K.,We will be called " fools " gladly, for the learned of this world called Christ a fool too. We rejoice to be worthy to be judged as was He.

Hold your horses - before you announce your candidacy for martyrdom and beatification, perhaps you could point out where I called you a “fool”? I, on the other hand, have long since stopped counting the times I have Psalms 14:1 thrown in my face!

P.S. You have not explained how it is that so many of your learned collegues, who clearly understand the Heisenberg Principle, are very devoute Christians and do think that the existence of God can be demonstrated many ways. Linus2nd

You can be a devout christian without thinking that the existence of God can be (logically) proven, but still, I am sure that there are scientists who do believe in such proofs.

So what? I disagree with them. We are allowed to do that in science. I am happy to debate their alleged ‘proofs’ with them. What do you think any of this proves?

Since this format limits full, organized discussion I refer you to the following answer given by the Magis Center ( Fr. Robert Spitzer ). magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=God_is_Uncreated

Lengthy I admit, but your objections require it.

It isn’t that lengthy, and could have easily been summarised here. It amounts to “I assert that I have a proof that there must be one and only one uncaused cause, and for details go buy my book”!

So, without going to buy his book - “at a discounted price (about $19.00)” - it seems clear that he is making a rather more subtle argument than the classic infinite regress of cause and effect. I have, from way back in the discussion, admitted that such arguments exist, but that they are totally different from the original infinite regress argument and so trying to conflate the two (apparently merely to avoid admitting that the first argument fails) is pointless at best, dishonest at worst.

I am also very suspicious of someone who claims to believe in God, and that that God is benevolent and wants us to believe in him, and who claims to have proof of all this, but then demands money to show these proofs rather than placing them on the Wiki site he already has.

 

[Ismael]

A possible loophole is a causal loop - but I would see that as an example of an infinite regress, which also asserts a finite number of events. Worst of both worlds.

Casual loops have never been a problem. It’s not like we just discovered them

You are speaking here of accidental and temporal causes, but there are also ‘per se’ cuases.

While accidental causes might ‘loop’ essential causes cannot and a loop of accidental causes still needs an ‘outside cause’, since it still is a contingent system which cannot be its own cause.

The laws of logic, far more than the laws of physics, are time reversible!

I think that makes little sense.

To say that the ‘laws of logic are time reversible’ is an incredibly vague and pointless statement, I think.

Logic is understood as the study of correct and coherent reasoning and applied often to serach new ‘truths’ through inductive or deductive resoning.

The laws of physics are models that describe reality (also in time) and when we say thay are time reversable we mean that:

1 For classical deterministic physics (but also in Quantum physics, although quamtum physics has a broader symmetry, the Charge-Time-Parity symmetry):
when ‘reversing time’ (i.e. making a certain physical system go into the opposite direction) the same equations and laws will apply (like in a chemical reaction A + B <–> C + D, for example where we have the reaction A + B → C + D and the reverse C + D–> A + B… or another example are a thermodynamical system, where you varies the temperature, for example, or the absorption and release of a photon by an electron in an atom in quantum mechanics)

The implications of time, and especially Charge-Time-Parity symmetry, is that one could theoretically have an ‘anti-universe’ that would have the same laws as ours, but with opposite parity, time (it’d run backwards) and charge (made of antimatter).

2 For stochastic (ie random) systems, it means that if we have 2 states A and B, we cannot determine which came first.

Yet this, more than ‘time reversable’ means rather ‘mathematically reversible’ regarding a certain variable in an equation (time in this case), since it implies that the laws of physics hold both in a certain process and it’s reverse.

Now this whole discussion is mostly meaningles when talking about (pure) logic, since logic in itself does not describe (mathematically) a certain event (like an electron absorbing a photon anf going to an higher allowed energy level) but it is far more abstract (and of course it can be applied to math and physics).

If your aim was to try to create a symmetry between infinite regression and infinite progression, than you fall flat on your face.

Since I have yet to see the explicit argument against what you call regressus ad infinitum, I can’t argue why that should apply to progressus ad infinitum - all I can say is that I can’t see why it shouldn’t.

Basically because regressus ad infinitum violates logic (and physics) itself. Think about it.

If everything has an accidental cause then the system either has a beginning or is “looping”.

Yet even if it is looping, there still the problem of per se causes, which MUST have a beginning somewhere and cannot regress infintely. A looping system must also be infintively stable: in nature there are no such systems due the second law of thermodynamics… even WORSE for a fully isolated system, such as the universe might be!.

So if there is an isolated universe, multiverse or ultraverse (whatever!) and we assume that the laws of physics (especially fundamental ones like the thermodynamical laws) still hold, then there can be no ‘looping system’ at all.

So PHYSICS seems to point out that there can be no looping system (a problem, among others, with the ‘big bounce model’ of the universe was indeed violation of the second law of thermodynamics.)

LOGIC: allows for a looping (or even infinitively regressive) ‘per accidens’ series of causes but looping or infinitely regressive per se causes are impossible and even if you have a systen with infinite per accidens causality (which is quite improbable as physics shows) it still would need a first per se cause at the origin of all.

A simple example: a particle going in circles: even if it goes or went in circles forever, it would still need a per se cause, in this case a material cause of the particle existing itself. It would make little sense (or no sense at all) to just claim ‘it has no cause’ (this does not mean the cause must be temporally antecedent to the particle going round and round)

Hence the burden of proof falls on you to prove that can even theoretically existe a “regressus ad infinitum”…

And no, the fact that progressum as infinitum might exist, does not conclude that regressus ad infinitum also exists, they are not symmetric, as I said above.

 

[Ismael]

I am also very suspicious of someone who claims to believe in God, and that that God is benevolent and wants us to believe in him, and who claims to have proof of all this, but then demands money to show these proofs rather than placing them

Right because atheists nevee sell books, containing their propaganda, right?

You are just biased.

I am addressing the argument often made that every event is caused by a previous event and as an infinite regress of events is rejected as ‘illogical’ there must be a first event that was not caused by a previous event “…and we call this God.” An argument which fails on many levels.

I think you fail on many levels in understanding the argument itself (as I have shown above, by the way).

Theists, for example do not claime that there are no infinite regresses possible, Aquinas for example did not deny the possibility of infinite regress of accidental causes.

I think that atheists like you either fail or are unwilling from the start to properly understand the arguments, since your critique has been refuted countless times by many:

just an example by Ed Feser… and hey it’s free so you do not have to lament you have to buy a book (or read it, we would not want you to inconvenience you with knowledge!):

edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html

than placing them on the Wiki site he already has

Right because wiki sites are the pinnacle of truth an reliability… not like a Dawkins fanboy might just vandalize or delete content, right?