But What If You're Wrong ...

[Radical]

I'm not following your logic here. It sounds like you're talking about a source of existence seperate from the universe. But the concept was that the univers was its own source.

So I'm posing the two mutually exclusive options for the universe: internal source of existence vs external source of existence. So if this were a academic article, I'd piece out the disjuncts and show demonstrate the logical cohesiveness of each. What I've tried to do (and way to briefly; I'm used to writing 15-20 page papers) is show that the atheistic claim hits a contradiction, specifically 1) the first cause must be physical but 2) the restricted nature of matter is incompatible with the nature of a first cause.

I invent new arguments when I don't want to finish my philosophy papers. Metaphysics of Mathematics as Structural Realism is due July 7th. So instead I talk about God.

Why would we need any of those?

An unrestricted quality of some physical thing would remove premise 2) from the board. Yet matter is bound.

I'm not getting why you're making all these assumptions of what a non-caused universe must look like. Where are you getting these conditions from ?

I think these "assumptions" (don't use the A word!) are derivative of the nature of a first cause. So for a first cause to truly be first, it exists under it's own power. My phrase has been "exists innately". So what all does this entail? If I use fire as an example, what limits fire? Oxygen, heat, and fuel. Fire has external limitations that hinder it's presence. Yet let's say there are no external limitations. There is infinite oxygen, infinite heat, and infinite fuel. What would limit the fire? Nothing. The fire would be equally infinite. So the first cause exists innately, thus is has no external limitations upon it's existence. Essentially, it would be like a fire without need for oxygen, heat, and fuel. The first cause would be unlimited in it's existence.

So, when I look at the physical universe, I look for something unlimited. But, that seems to contradict matter's limited nature.

 

[Radical]

My objection was to your circular logic using an assumption with no basis as your starting point and then building on that as if there's no other possibility, and your choice of one of many potentially viable scenarios as the most likely because you like it "better".

Your basis for a non-physical first cause is "we can't think of anything else". And my answer to that is that the earth used to be flat and the sun revolved around the earth because "we couldn't think of anything else".

I believe that it's totally possible that our solar system is merely a molecule, and our universe merely the gall bladder of really big dog running around in the backyard of God's house, but at this time there is no evidence to support the existence of God, only the lack of evidences which are filled in with maybes by the hopeful.

That's not what you said in your post. I'll requote it for you.

Wat?

"There is no evidence for that first cause to be physical ... [so] it's better ["better"??!! there's no logic in "better"] to conclude that the first cause is non-physical." ... and somehow that's not an assumption?

You've convinced me!! It's "better" to assume that God exists and created the universe out of nothing than to assume that the universe has always existed, or that we simply haven't learned enough to explain its actual, non-God origins.

P.S. You're beginning with a flawed first premise, that "we must have a first cause". That's not necessarily true. We may need a first cause to fit into our current understanding of the universe, but that doesn't mean one must exist.

Please recollect yourself and come back. There's no shame in getting discombobulated when these forum debates take days to get replies. If you problem is "we must have a first cause", then you just don't understand the logic. Logic is often built on if-then statements. If I eat, then I won't be hungry. If you submit to a first cause, if A then B, if B then C, etc. In symbolic logic, it looks like this:

A->B->C->D->E->F->G->H->I......->now

So, if "A" happens, we get a chain reaction that leads us to now. But an infinite regress actually requires a never-ending "if". The entire sequence never begins because there literally is no start.

If your objection is that you think I say "We can't think of anything else, therefore God", you misunderstand me. Physical objects by nature do not exist innately, therefore we must conclude a non-physical first cause. We know physical objects by nature do not exist innately because of our observations. This is known inductively.

 

[Radical]

This is based on a somewhat faulty understanding of infinity. If infinite regress exists, that does not mean that there exists a specific point in time which is 'infinitely far away' - just as in the realm of mathematics you can not have an integer which is 'infinitely far away' from 0, but infinity mathematically exists nonetheless. To use a number line as an analogy, you have to treat *now* as the zero point with an infinite number of instances both before and after it - but there is not point on the line which is an infinite distance away.

Eternal regression means that there is no beginning (or 'end', if you work backwards). That means that your argument is irrelevant, since it posits an 'end' (working backwards) and then states we can't get from that 'end point' to here.

From a geometrical point of view, you can halve the size of a square infinitely and indefinitely.

I'll miss the rest of your post since it works within the assumption that a First Cause is proven. But there are some issues with it (for example, even in an objective moral framework, can the First Cause be infinitely evil?).

See the above post for logic on the existence of a first cause.

 

[Radical]

That isn't an explanation. Logic is explainable. Why must there be a cause?
If you cant explain it then you are not arguing from logic, merely assumption.

See the post above the post above this one.

 

[iangb]

See the above post for logic on the existence of a first cause.

Please recollect yourself and come back. There's no shame in getting discombobulated when these forum debates take days to get replies. If you problem is "we must have a first cause", then you just don't understand the logic. Logic is often built on if-then statements. If I eat, then I won't be hungry. If you submit to a first cause, if A then B, if B then C, etc. In symbolic logic, it looks like this:

A->B->C->D->E->F->G->H->I......->now

So, if "A" happens, we get a chain reaction that leads us to now. But an infinite regress actually requires a never-ending "if". The entire sequence never begins because there literally is no start.

If your objection is that you think I say "We can't think of anything else, therefore God", you misunderstand me. Physical objects by nature do not exist innately, therefore we must conclude a non-physical first cause. We know physical objects by nature do not exist innately because of our observations. This is known inductively.

As I stated in my last post, the point of an infinite regress is that there is no start. That's the nature of an infinite regress.

Your argument here is literally "there must be a start to the universe, because if there wasn't then there would be no start to the universe!" That's circular logic.

 

[Quag]

See the post above the post above this one.

See the above post

 

[Critter7r]

That's not what you said in your post. I'll requote it for you.

Please recollect yourself and come back. There's no shame in getting discombobulated when these forum debates take days to get replies. If you problem is "we must have a first cause", then you just don't understand the logic. Logic is often built on if-then statements. If I eat, then I won't be hungry. If you submit to a first cause, if A then B, if B then C, etc. In symbolic logic, it looks like this:

A->B->C->D->E->F->G->H->I......->now

So, if "A" happens, we get a chain reaction that leads us to now. But an infinite regress actually requires a never-ending "if". The entire sequence never begins because there literally is no start.

If your objection is that you think I say "We can't think of anything else, therefore God", you misunderstand me. Physical objects by nature do not exist innately, therefore we must conclude a non-physical first cause. We know physical objects by nature do not exist innately because of our observations. This is known inductively.

Those two posts of mine that you quoted don't seem to contradict each other ... :shrug

Please see the summary of your circular logic (that I was unable to so succinctly provide) below:

...

Your argument here is literally "there must be a start to the universe, because if there wasn't then there would be no start to the universe!" That's circular logic.

What if there isn't a start to the universe? I can't easily wrap my head around it either, but I imagine it's possible.

 

[Amadeus]

If I'm wrong about God, I'll have no regrets. If God wants to punish me for not believing in him, even though he provided zero proof of his existence, that's on him. If he's a benevolent and just God, I'll be forgiven. If he's the asshole seen in the Old Testament, I'm in a world of hurt. And so is just about everyone else.

 

[zyzygy]

If I'm wrong about God, I'll have no regrets. If God wants to punish me for not believing in him, even though he provided zero proof of his existence, that's on him. If he's a benevolent and just God, I'll be forgiven. If he's the asshole seen in the Old Testament, I'm in a world of hurt. And so is just about everyone else.

I agree. But it could be Krishna or Odin who punishes us so unfairly. The Jews and the Christians could be in the punishment queue with us.

 

[RAMOSS]

Good thing we're not talking about physics then =p

Yet, when it comes to talking about that nature of reality, you can not dismiss what reality is, and physics is part of that reality.

 

[Radical]

As I stated in my last post, the point of an infinite regress is that there is no start. That's the nature of an infinite regress.

Your argument here is literally "there must be a start to the universe, because if there wasn't then there would be no start to the universe!" That's circular logic.

You have never taken a logic class...

Infinite regress is incompatible with cause and effect; they contradict in the way I demonstrated. The nature of an infinite regress conflicts with the nature of cause and effect. The infinite regress is a never-ending series of logical conditionals. In and of itself, it's not instantiated. It's only a big long series of "if"s. Even if all the "if"s do exist, they only exist as an "if", only as a logical conditional, waiting to be instantiated. It is inherently illogical because it defies cause and effect, which is the crux of logic. A first cause is necessary to instantiate all the "if"s, even in an infinite sequence.

You could say "stuff is illogical, so what". That would allow an infinite regress. But it would also destroy your ability to make an argument, because now illogical things aren't inherently problematic.

 

[Radical]

See the above post

Ditto.

 

[Critter7r]

If the universe has a beginning, then it must also one day have an end.

What does that end look like? Is it something we can imagine? And is it really an 'end'? Or just a transformation into something that we wouldn't recognize as our universe, but still being a "something"?

I've often wondered if the "big bang" wasn't simply the inevitable explosion of all the matter that gravitated together at the "end" of the last universe. Or if the idea of "parallel universes" isn't really just a number of those really big dogs I mentioned earlier running around in God's backyard.

 

[iangb]

You have never taken a logic class...

Infinite regress is incompatible with cause and effect; they contradict in the way I demonstrated. The nature of an infinite regress conflicts with the nature of cause and effect. The infinite regress is a never-ending series of logical conditionals. In and of itself, it's not instantiated. It's only a big long series of "if"s. Even if all the "if"s do exist, they only exist as an "if", only as a logical conditional, waiting to be instantiated. It is inherently illogical because it defies cause and effect, which is the crux of logic. A first cause is necessary to instantiate all the "if"s, even in an infinite sequence.

You could say "stuff is illogical, so what". That would allow an infinite regress. But it would also destroy your ability to make an argument, because now illogical things aren't inherently problematic.

Infinite regress and cause and effect do not oppose one another any more than infinity and counting oppose each other. By analogy:

1) Each number is followed by another number
2) Numbers go on infinitely.
3) Therefore it is impossible for each number to be followed by another number, because if you started at infinity and worked backwards you would never get to zero.

...is equally poor logic, which mirrors pretty much exactly what you are using here.

Your point does not rest on logic. Your point rests on a faulty understanding of infinity.

 

[Radical]

Yet, when it comes to talking about that nature of reality, you can not dismiss what reality is, and physics is part of that reality.

Nothing I've said contradicts physics at all.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nothing I've said contradicts physics at all.

Yet, you are not clarifying what you mean. The lack of clarification is avoidance.

 

[Quag]

Ditto.

See post 439

 

[Radical]

Infinite regress and cause and effect do not oppose one another any more than infinity and counting oppose each other. By analogy:

1) Each number is followed by another number
2) Numbers go on infinitely.
3) Therefore it is impossible for each number to be followed by another number, because if you started at infinity and worked backwards you would never get to zero.

...is equally poor logic, which mirrors pretty much exactly what you are using here.

Your point does not rest on logic. Your point rests on a faulty understanding of infinity.

That's not even close to how infinity works. You can't start "at" infinity any more than you can count "to" infinity.

"Now" exists if and only if prior conditions caused it. Those prior conditions existed if and only if more prior conditions caused it. And this can't extend infinitely, else ad absurdum.

 

[Radical]

Yet, you are not clarifying what you mean. The lack of clarification is avoidance.

Demonstrate the paradox and I'll attempt to clarify. You talked about the qualities of a vacuum. In what way does the philosophical understanding of a vacuum differ from that of a physicists understanding of a vacuum? I don't readily know any major difference.

 

[RAMOSS]

Demonstrate the paradox and I'll attempt to clarify. You talked about the qualities of a vacuum. In what way does the philosophical understanding of a vacuum differ from that of a physicists understanding of a vacuum? I don't readily know any major difference.

When you are using the 'first cause' argument, it has everything to do with it. FIrst of all, the 'vacuum' in phsycis is 'quantum foam' , which is different that the metaphysical concept of 'nothing' .. which is the absence of everything. With quantum interactions and potentials, and the fact that there are quantum event that do not appear to have a cause totally disrupts the 'first cause' argument.

 

[iangb]

That's not even close to how infinity works. You can't start "at" infinity any more than you can count "to" infinity.

I know. It's your faulty logic that claimed otherwise - see the following quote of yours:

If time can go backwards infinitely, then it begs the question of why is there "now". "Now" had to take an infinite amount of time to get here. There should always be a "one more" before we get to the present, just as there is a "one more" before we backtrack to a beginning.

Given that an infinite regress has no beginning, referencing a 'beginning' is illogical.

"Now" exists if and only if prior conditions caused it. Those prior conditions existed if and only if more prior conditions caused it. And this can't extend infinitely, else ad absurdum.

You accuse me of faulty logic and then you just handwave in ad absurdum without any rationale behind it? For reference; Ad absurdum means that X cannot be true because if it were true, [absurd result]. You have not provided that absurd result. It's pretty telling that you don't actually have an opposing argument.

For completion's sake; this still mirrors my 'numbers' parody. "All integers must be preceded by another integer. (Eg -4 is preceded by -5). And this can't extend infinitely, else ad absurdum." Faulty logic.

 

[Critter7r]

That's not even close to how infinity works. You can't start "at" infinity any more than you can count "to" infinity.

I think that was the point. His "1,2,3" comment was showing a case of faulty conclusion. That faulty conclusion being that it is impossible for numbers to go on to infinity because if you started at infinity and counted backwards, you would never reach zero. Which is obviously incorrect because numbers can and do go to infinity.

Which I would say parallels the faulty idea that time cannot go on to infinity because we can't start at now (infinity) and look back to zero (the start of time).