-->
@Benjamin
I didn't say it denies logic, just that we have to check our conclusions against reality.
The endless chain of causes
Posts
Total:
138
-->
@RationalMadman
As you support the simulation hypothesis, what matter is it to you your opinion that I support sexual harassment, which I do not?
-->
@fauxlaw
Because pain is real in a simulation. You and I being simulated is irrelevant within the simulation.
-->
@EtrnlVw
God has no beginning and ending because God does not exist within a linear time frame, rather a static Reality where God begins the processes of bringing things and events into existence.
This is a logical contradiction. A static reality would have no movement, no progression. Beginning a process by definition requires progression.
-->
@RationalMadman
pain is real in a simulation. You and I being simulated is irrelevant within the simulation.
Well stated and sufficient reason to dismiss solipsism even if you cannot disprove it.
-->
@RationalMadman
That's an easy out I do not accept.
-->
@fauxlaw
Easy out is saying you are entitled to sexually harass someone or defend Trump for doing it because another user on a website believes reality has simulated origins.
Easy out is saying you are entitled to sexually harass someone or defend Trump for doing it because another user on a wevsite believes reality has simulated origins.
RM can u unblock me on Discord, I want to discuss something with you
-->
@RationalMadman
Only a guilty conscience would assume that. Stop putting words in my mind and claiming they're mine.
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not, anyone can scroll up and see. You are going out of your way to piss me off but all you've achieved is to show your own 'easy way out' and me not taking the bait.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I mean you can claim it just began just because it happened to spontaneously happen but that's speculation too. And I find inanimate forces and events spontaneously creating universes, planets, solar systems, ecosystems and animate creatures too far fetched to accept.
Well stated
-->
@Double_R
Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?
If it was, it would not be the *first* cause objectively. For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Benjamin
I mean you can claim it just began just because it happened to spontaneously happen but that's speculation too.
What if my claim is that we do not know how it happened and that speculation is therefore all we are capable of? What if I further claim that speculation absent evidence is a poor pathway to truth.
This may lean we don't have and cannot find an answer. I am sorry if this is an uncomfortable thought for you but really humans don't know much in the grand scheme of things and I would find a way to square myself with 'I don't know' if I were you.
-->
@Benjamin
For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
This seems nonsensical. Every cause and effect is a change. Anything unmoved cannot be a mover in as much as we understand cause and effect.
-->
@secularmerlin
We know that a chain of causality exists, and have three ways of explaining it:
- God started the chain of causality
- Something similar to God started the chain of causality
- The chain of causality never ends
- This third option is nonsensical, This vide will gladly explain why an eternal universe is absurd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo
If you claim that the universe has no cause, then you must explain why things don't appear anywhere. Nothingness has no trait and cannot be restrained. If nothing has the potential to create something, then we would observe something from nothing inside our universe. If nothing can only create universes, then that nothing is restrained by some law. And if nothing can be restrained, it has a trait, making it SOMETHING.
Therefore, the only two options left for why the chain of causality exists are:
- God
- Something similar to God
-->
@Benjamin
You are forgetting several options including but not limited to...
Something dissimilar from your preferred god concept (say a mindless force such as the ones responsible for making snowflakes or regulating the dance of heavenly bodies in their circling of the galaxy.
The energy/matter of the universe having always existed in one form or another.
The universe being an unintended byproduct of something else or perhaps just an accident in and of itself.
Also there do appear to be particles that spring spontaneously into existence.
Part of the trouble is that a thing which spontaneously happens with no cause is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a thing for which the cause is still unknown.
I am not claiming one of these possibilities is the correct one or even trying to argue one is more likely. I am actually arguing that to do so would be foolish given our current level of understanding about the observable universe (low) and our current level of understanding about whatever, if anything, is outside the observable universe (none).
-->
@Benjamin
We know that a chain of causality exists, and have three ways of explaining it:
You missed choice number 4; an option we have not thought of.
There could be multiple chains of causation started by multiple first causes. Nothing in your argument precludes this and in fact you cannot dismiss this while being logically consistent. You either accept causality or you don’t. You can’t claim Thing A exists without a cause and then claim nothing else can because that would violate causality.
-->
@Benjamin
Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?If it was, it would not be the *first* cause objectively. For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
That’s not an answer, you’re just repeating your claim.
Suppose God is the first cause... that would simply mean he exists without anything else causing it. Why would his existence then be limited to a state unable to change?
-->
@secularmerlin
Your supposed "alternatives" are not alternatives, but variants of category two. The third category of causes just extends the chain, it must end eventually.
Here is a logically sound explanation for the alternatives:
- The religious image of God has by definition the needed traits to exist eternally and start the chain of causes.
- Something that is not God, which shares those qualities, could also start the chain of causes.
- If the cause has no end, then it is absurd and the theory should be discarded as illogical and self-contradictory (infinite universes are impossible in principle.
- If the chain has no cause, it cannot have a start by definition. But if it had, it would create the paradox described earlier: why does Nothing seem restricted to create universes, not pink flying elephants.
In the end, the only viable option is that the cause of the chain is either God, or another being with those special traits of God.
In other words, the traits God is claimed to have MUST exist, and they MUST belong to some being that started the chain of causality.
This is basic logic, invented thousands of years ago.
If your supposedly "scientific" position contradicts the philosophy that created science, it is self-contradictory.
-->
@Benjamin
You have not shown that the traits you are describing are necessary for the purposes of universe creation in a much as you have not explained the process of universe creation.
Let's take the trait "very powerful". This isby no means a logical necessity. Very small causes can potentially create massive effects especially when dealing with longer and longer timeframes. If a single snow flake or the cough of a climber can cause tons upon tons of snow to become dislodged and bury an entire village in an avalanche perhaps a single falling snowflake could trigger the universe.
We can if you like go through the whole list but suffice to say that you are taking a LOT for granted here that our current understanding WILL NOT support.
-->
@Double_R
You missed choice number 4; an option we have not thought of.
Either the chain of causes is eternal, or it isn't
Either the universe has a cause, or it doesn't.
God, not being caused, would not be a part of the universe. Anything that is "similar" to God is not a part of the universe.
By universe, I mean the chain of causes. In other words, anything that is caused is a part of the universe.
There are four possible alternatives then:
- Eternal universe without cause
- Eternal universe with cause
- Finite universe without cause
- Finite universe with a cause
As stated earlier, eternal universes have no bearing in reality, the idea is impossible even in principle.
We have now two options:
- Finite universe with a cause
- Finite universe without a cause
In other words:
- Finite universe caused by God
- Finite universe caused by something else than God (something similar to God that isn't God)
- Finite universe with no cause.
The "fourth" alternative doesn't exist. It is simply an appeal to ignorance or an attempt at duplicating option 2.
-->
@secularmerlin
Fair enough, let us deduce a MINIMUM trait that God, or anything similar, would have.
INDEPENDENCE.
God, or anything we would be able to call "god-like", would exist independent of all other things.
Please debunk this trait, that is, explain why God is not independent, or why something not independent could create the chain of causes.
-->
@Benjamin
Why is god like a necessary trait for a cause to have?
In any case as far as I understand the concept of independence it is SEPERATE FROM something as in UNAFFECTED BY and NOT EFFECTING the thing it is independent of. If you think this is incorrect please provide your preferred definition of the term INDEPENDENT.
-->
@secularmerlin
Independent: not requiring or relying on something else
I exist BECAUSE I was born. I relly on my birth for my existence. My birth relies on the BB happening. This chain of "dependencies" is the chain of "events" I am talking about.
God is not dependent upon something else. God exists regardless of what else exists. This trait is necessary for a first cause to have. Why you might ask? Because anything with dependence has a cause. You cannot be the "first" cause if some cause came BEFORE you. Therefore, the first cause cannot be caused by something else, it is by definition the "first" cause.
Again, consider our options.
- God, or something similar, created the chain of causes
- The chain of causes has no cause
God is the CREATOR of the chain because he is the starting point. God caused the universe, or the multiverse, or whatever. But he himself has no cause.
In other words, everything in that chain of causes HAS and IS a cause. I am born, I give birth and die (analogy for all states of energy).
God is the only link in the chain that has no cause. You can follow the chain backwards, find my grandparents, the big bang, the multiverse big bang, but in the end, you will arrive at something that has no cause. We call this "thing" INDEPENDENT. Yes, it might not be God, but it MUST have the god-like property of independence.
-->
@Benjamin
not requiring or relying on something else
Why could the universe itself (or at least all the matter/energy) which comprises it not simply be independent then?
I'm sorry but you are now making a case of special pleading.
"Everything has to have a cause except for the one specific thing I am proposing" is not significantly different than saying "not all things require a cause". If not all things require a cause then perhaps the cosmos is the thing which doesn't require one. Perhaps it was just a tiny dissonance like a single subatomic particle appearing for a virtual moment without any cause, as quantum mechanics seems to suggest is at least possible, and it set off the "avalanche" of "reality". As I said I'm not arguing for a specific cause or lack thereof I am simply unconvinced by your arguments, the premises of which are impossible to realistically evaluate and so whose soundness is unknowable to is.
-->
@secularmerlin
special pleading
Not at all. "Everything has a cause, except things that by definition have no cause", is not special pleading, it is a logical NECESSITY.
If I claimed that "everything has a cause, except my religious view of God, as described in my religion", that would not be a special pleading either, it would simply be a false syllogism. One CAN in fact imagine a God that isn't my specific religious image of God. So the logically necessary conclusion of a first cause does not prove the existence of "my" God, it simply proves the existence of something god-like.
Why could the universe itself not simply be independent then?
Because an infinite universe is absurd even in principle. An infinite expansion could never lead up to a specific point, which makes the existence of "now" impossible.
Why could all the matter/energy not simply be independent then?
Energy that exists IN the universe cannot be the thing that CAUSES the universe. Also, consider a photon. Its existence is DEPENDENT on the sun, which means that it isn't independent. You can trace the history of interactions between energy back to infinity. This creates the same problem an infinity of causes being absurd.
Perhaps it was just a tiny dissonance...set off the "avalanche" of "reality".
Unfortunately, such an event would require a cause.
-->
@Benjamin
Not at all. "Everything has a cause, except things that by definition have no cause", is not special pleading, it is a logical NECESSITY.
Be careful of defining things out of existence.
IF your argument is that the local observable instance of spacetime (ostensibly the physical cause that is the first observable cause leading up to you being born) MUST have a seperate cause BECAUSE we do not observe anything causeless THEN it is anathema to your argument to suggest ANYTHING that constitutes a causeless thing. You immediately invalidate your own argument that things cannot exist without a cause. You can add all the special definitional traits you like but if you cannot demonstrate the thing you are defining it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a fiction.
-->
@secularmerlin
You immediately invalidate your own argument that things cannot exist without a cause.
OBJECTION: My argument is not that things cannot exist without a cause, but that things cannot START without a cause. God, or the other optionional causes, do by definition have no beginning. Therefore, it doesn't invalidate the argument.
BECAUSE we do not observe anything causeless
OBJECTION: The evidence is not based on sciene alone, but also on irrefutable philosophical evidence. Nothing cannot cause something. Only something can produce something. This means that anything CAUSED is caused by something previous. From this, we can derrive that anything that STARTS, is caused. I am not making the argument that everything is caused, that would be to undermine the verry notion of existence. I am making the argument that there are three types of things:
- Nonexistent things
- Caused things
- Uncaused things
The first group MUST exist, by philosophical necesity.
The second group we observe
The third group MUST exist if the second group is observed
In other words, there are no logical fallacies in the argument.
-->
@Benjamin
You can add all the special definitional traits you like but if you cannot demonstrate the thing you are defining it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a fiction.
-->
@Benjamin
Nothing cannot cause something.
Having no cause is not the same as being caused by nothing. I agree being caused by nothing would be nonsense.