If a first cause is logically necessary, what does that entail for the universe's origins?
A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 After much debate, I am satisfied that the argument successfully stands. With this concluded, I wanted to add what this means for origin theories of our universe.
What does it mean to be a "first cause"?
a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality.
Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence.
b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be.
Rules and limitations are created through causality. If something has no prior reason for its being, then there is no reason why it should, or should not be what it is.
What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.
b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.
If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused.
Where does this leave the idea of a God?
It is possible that there is a first cause that could have a power over existence we do not fully understand. But it is also possible that this is not the case. Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared.
Can we use the idea that a first cause is logically necessary to prove there is a God?
1. We cannot prove any one thing is a first cause.
2. There is no logical limitation that only one thing can be a first cause.
So while we can state it is possible for a God to be a first cause, so could any other possible thing we imagine. As such, a God as a first cause is not logically necessary, only a logical plausibility.
Does this argument deny that God can exist?
No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality.
So what would it take to prove a God exists now?
The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative.
What does it mean to be a "first cause"?
a. A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality.
Once a thing exists, it can interact with whatever is around it, and follows the rules of its own existence.
b. There are no limitations or rules that necessitate what a first cause must be.
Rules and limitations are created through causality. If something has no prior reason for its being, then there is no reason why it should, or should not be what it is.
What can we conclude about reality if a first cause is logically necessary?
a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.
b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.
If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused.
Where does this leave the idea of a God?
It is possible that there is a first cause that could have a power over existence we do not fully understand. But it is also possible that this is not the case. Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared.
Can we use the idea that a first cause is logically necessary to prove there is a God?
1. We cannot prove any one thing is a first cause.
2. There is no logical limitation that only one thing can be a first cause.
So while we can state it is possible for a God to be a first cause, so could any other possible thing we imagine. As such, a God as a first cause is not logically necessary, only a logical plausibility.
Does this argument deny that God can exist?
No. All the current philosophical arguments for there necessarily being a God can no longer stand. This does not mean a God is not a logical impossibility. While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist. If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality.
So what would it take to prove a God exists now?
The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative.
Comments (54)
I like your breakdown.
Quoting Philosophim
It appears you base this upon virtual particles, because there are "gazilions" of virtual particles in the universe one may think there are gazilions first causes happening all the time.
Otherwise multiple first causes make no sense to me, isn't "first" cause suppose to mean literary "first" rather than one of many.
If there are multiple first causes then they are surely not first.
How do you explain multiple first causes?
Quoting Philosophim
another existence, leads to infinity.
Quoting Philosophim
If God is supernatural being, then how is it possible to present any kind of evidence to non supernatural beings?
Only if God is not supernatural it makes sense to search for evidence.
I actually don't. Its interesting that virtual particles aligns with the logic, but I made this philosophical argument based on the premises, not on the outcome.
Quoting SpaceDweller
A first cause is something which has no prior cause for its existence. So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence. After all, there's nothing to entail a first cause would continue to exist for any length of time either. You can't say, "That's can't happen," because that would entail there is some prior causality that would prevent this from happening.
However, when that particle appears, if it impacts something else that already exists, the first cause particle is the reason why the other particle acted a particular way. Essentially go up the chain of any examined causality, and you will eventually get to the point where a first cause is involved. That does not mean other chains of causality cannot exist separately from each other. A first cause on Pluto will not likely affect a first cause on Earth.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I did not understand what you meant by this, could you explain?
Quoting SpaceDweller
If a God created the universe as it is today, then that means a God can interact with the world. The term "supernatural" is a descriptor when we don't know how the God did it. If a God created it, then it interacted and caused it. Therefore there should be evidence.
If you disagree with this, please clearly define what you mean by supernatural.
if there is possibility for multiple first causes, and possibility for them to happen even today, that doesn't get rid of question, which of these first causes was very first.
I think it's important to know very first cause because that's what matters for universe coming into existence.
there may be first causes happening all the time, but what caused creation, it must have been only one cause.
Quoting Philosophim
you said "We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused"
if it's another existence then within another existence must have been first cause, and if it was then what is that another existence and what was first cause of it.
it may be yet another existence, and so on... leads to infinity
Quoting Philosophim
I think of supernatural as something that does not exist in this reality, ie. it can't be touched, seen, smelled or observed.
it exists in another reality to which we have no access.
That can't happen. That's why the universe is eternal.
But if you believe a God could just happen, then logically, this could happen as well. If you state it can't happen, then you state a God can't just happen either. I don't think that's what you want.
Even if you state the universe is eternal, there's the question of what caused it be eternal. If it the answer is, "It simply is", then the universe also simply just happened to exist eternally without any prior cause. Meaning you've described another situation in which is God is not necessary to explain the universe's origins.
There you God me! But gods are wise. They have creation power. Particles don't.
The particles can be eternal and still created by gods. I think.
I don't think that's a question we can answer. And it may not have an answer. It could have been one or several first causes happened at the same time. It could be that multiple first causes had causal chains that blended into each other.
Quoting SpaceDweller
No, logically it does not only need one first cause. You can prove this to yourself. Answer why it is necessary that only one first cause created the universe. Whatever you come up with, I'm going to say, "But a first cause has no limitations on what it can be, you've put a limitation on what it can be. Therefore its not a first cause."
Quoting SpaceDweller
No, I mean there is an actual end. There is a point in which there is no prior causality. We may misinterpret that there is, but there actually isn't if we're examining the logic of what a first cause would entail.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Then it could not cause this universe. To cause something, there must be an interaction of some sort. Even then, it still doesn't change the point. Lets say that the first cause of our universe was supernatural. It doesn't mean it has to be a God. We could have supernatural particles that created the universe, then exited it. Possibility does not mean logical necessity. To prove logical necessity, you'll need evidence.
Well, I don't believe this. They just exist forever. What can be one of the reasons for their creation. Eternal intelligence stands on another level than eternal particles. They fall in different categories, so to speak.
I never said particles necessarily had creation power. I'm just noting that a first cause can logically be anything.
If something is eternal, meaning its always been around, by definition it can't be created right? That would entail that it one point it wasn't around, which would mean its not actually eternal.
That's the question most difficult. You would say no, as they were always there, like the gods. But since gods have created the universe in heavenly image, they must have had a way to create particles eternally in the past. Or maybe created all of spacetime at once. And then put in the particles to follow the lines.
"A first cause" is merely an imaginary construct.
One might conclude that reality – its physical laws – do not prohibit a system of logic (or computational model) which entails "a first cause".
Depends on the type of "god". Mostly, "the idea" is fictional (or merely a logical construct) like "first cause".
No. Only, perhaps, that a "God" is an imaginary construct like a "first cause".
One seems to have nothing to do with other.
Define "God" and then provide or indicate unique evidences (e.g. changes only it causes to the natural world) which are entailed by it's predicates.
No, I don't think so. Mind demonstrating why it is? That's in the other post. This OP assumes a person has accepted the conclusions of the original post I referenced.
Quoting 180 Proof
Correct. And if reality cannot prove that system of logic incorrect, then it is concurrent with reality.
Quoting 180 Proof
This is just addressing the general philosophical idea of a God as a creator of rest of reality. All that would be noted is that there could be being that formed without prior cause which had the power to do so. There are no implications to any specific religion, morality, or any capabilities of this being beyond this basic defintion.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'll post it again then.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting 180 Proof
That's what I conclude, I think we're in agreement. The point here is, the argument I've presented eliminates the alternative philosophical arguments for God as a necessary existence that I am aware of.
If the world is eternal, each member previous to another is the first cause and it is time that holds all these first not-first members together
Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.
So, we give them impersonal technical names -- like Energy, Force, Natural Laws -- and rest assured that those labels mean that we understand them. Yet, modern scientists may know more about what causal "Energy" does, but nothing about what it is essentially. For example, Energy is defined as the "ability", or "power" to cause change, but those attributes also pertain to human agents. So, it's easy to see why the ancients pictured their gods in human or animal form.
The Monotheistic notion of deity was a later development in the science-myths of early civilizations. That all-encompassing concept was probably a reaction to philosophical critiques of polytheism, as recorded in the Hebrew & Hindu Scriptures. If the deity is a formless spirit, not in physical form, most of the practical objections, such as "where's the evidence?" could be ignored. In the apocryphal chapter 14 of the book of Daniel, the hero proved empirically that the idol of Baal (Bel) was not actually eating the food offered to him. Yet, Daniel's non-physical god, with no need for food, was immune to such negative evidence. Ironically, his own Hebrew culture's tribal-god fore-runner also demanded food sacrifices. But, the scriptures say He survived a god-competition cook-off, by consuming the offerings to other gods with divine fire.
Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. And modern science has nothing to say about such meta-physical (non-physical) existence. So, depending on your assessment of the logical evidence, you can believe it or not. However, there is "another possible alternative". Actually, several possibilities. For example, the First Cause postulated by Plato & Aristotle was not presented as a human, but as an eternal logical principle of causation & organization. As such, the only evidence for that kind of governing principle is logical consistency : e.g. an evolutionary sequence either has a first instance or it is eternal.
The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is contingent upon some a priori Cause, existing before the Big Bang. You could say that the Singularity itself is the Prime Cause of space-time, hence a creator God. But, it's just an abstract mathematical concept, so is it worthy of the label "god". Or should we look beyond that dimensionless dot of Potential, for an ultimate timeless-spaceless Creative Cause of our own contingent Existence? :cool:
GOD OF THE DEAD PORTRAYED AS JACKAL MAN (scavenger of dead bodies)
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more.
Quoting Gnomon
The OP that I site I prove that at least one first cause is logically necessary. As such, that means our universe is ultimately explained by those first causes. Regardless of what science postulates, this claim still stands.
That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?
How else could we "evaluate" such a conjecture, except via rational analysis of the deductive process? Plato & Aristotle offered no physical (quanta) evidence to support their proposed fundamental (qualia) "Principle". Basically, all we can say about any such hypothesis (proposed explanation) is that it either makes sense or not ; it's believable or not. However, the "sense" depends on the definition. The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. But most theologians & philosophers would feel discriminated against by such an exclusionary construction of the question. However, if a philosophical First Cause or Eternal Deity is taken as a "principle", it is inherently exempted from scientific proof. Which leaves us two options : evaluate the logic of the principle, or use force to compel agreement to its authority. :nerd:
Logical Necessity :
[i]1. When something is logically necessary, it is true by definition
2. a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds[/i] ___Wiki
Monotheism :
Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself ___ https://plato.stanford.edu/plato.stanford.edu
Principle :
[i]Principles are ideas based on scientific rules and laws that are generally accepted by scientists. They are fundamental truths that are the foundation for other studies. Principles are qualitative.
They aren't really rules that can be written down with mathematical symbols. They are more like guiding ideas that scientists use to make predictions and develop new laws. . . .
A law describes an event, but it does not explain why the event happens. Laws describe relationships, specific situations, and conditions. This is different from a principle, which tells us why and how things happen.[/i]
https://www.expii.com/t/scientific-principle-definition-examples-10310
PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no?
What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous?
That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.
However, some speculative Philosophers & Cosmologists & Theologians seem comfortable with (or resigned to) Eternal Ellipsis ("God" or "First Cause" or "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds" ; insert your label "here") as a logical answer to ultimate questions about a proximate world. Apparently, for Plato the "First Cause" was an eternal Principle, which served as a stand-in for all those elliptical dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :sad:
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein
Cyclic Universe :
these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN
Each world has a beginning if parallel. Infinite serial don't seem to need entropy increase when passing from one to a next universe. If one universe has accelerated away to infinity and all energy is gone, the situation is like it started again, and "BANG!", it starts again. Like a Russian Doll episode.
Penrose's cyclic universe is a nice picture, and a serial "killer" as well, but dark energy isn't explained. And photons can't be the cause of a new origin.
Quoting Gnomon
It are conditions in which we live. Not modes of thinking which we project but the world projected into us.
Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made.
Quoting Gnomon
If you would like to logically infer God, that is fine. But I cannot think of a philosophical argument that can necessitate God's existence any longer. Meaning we can state, "If a God existed, perhaps X would happen." But one cannot philosophically claim God is a necessary existence for creation to exist.
Quoting Gnomon
No. The first cause requires no external prior-to. It is explained by its own existence, and nothing prior. If a first cause required an external prior causality, it wouldn't be a first cause. Feel free to refer to the link in the OP for the original argument for the proof.
Finite or infinite is irrelevant. In the case of an infinite chain of causality (if this is possible) there is still the question of why there is an infinite chain of causality versus finite. The end result is the same. "It is, because this is how it exists". There is nothing prior to explain its existence.
But how can thermodynamic time emerge? There gotta be a different kind of time kicking it of.
Then there would need to be a different kind of time kicking THAT off. Then we would need a different... you get it.
A first cause needs nothing prior. The reason for its existence is, "It is." There's no other reason. Inevitably in any chain of causality you will arrive at a first cause. There will be no prior reason for its being. There will be no limitations prior to its being. It simply happened. There does not have to be anything prior, and in fact, logically cannot.
Thermodynamic time is a different time as the time setting it off. A cyclic time, say. Before real particles were realized ( the emergence of TD time) there were only virtual ones, as TD time had not taken off yet. Virtual particles oscillate in time (TD time wasn't there yet, so this was an inherent fluctuation). This is an eternal fluctuation, also happening in vacuum. But how can this have gotten into existence? Just "not being there and then being there"?
Again, it doesn't matter. If Y is what we're looking at, and its explained by a X, Y is not a first cause. A first cause is when a Y is not explained by a prior X. And the only answer as to why the Y exists, is "It just is".
Quoting Haglund
All of this is irrelevant. Is all of this explained by something prior, or is it a first cause?
Quoting Haglund
There is no prior reason why it gained existence. The reason why it exists, is because it does. If 2 seconds prior nothing was there, and then something appeared into existence without a prior cause, then it would be. As a first cause is logically necessary, this is what happens. No matter the desire that there be something prior, there is not. And because there is nothing prior, there are no rules or restrictions that state Y must, or could not be a particular thing. Of course, once Y exists, it has its own rules, but there are no rules or limitations that state Y must, or must not have been.
-As I pointed out, you don't have enough data to assume non existence. After all Non existence is not a state of being so it is irrational to even assume it in your effort to introduce the supernatural.
Again this is not a Philosophical Topic. This is a theological one.
-Can you demonstrate the possibility of such an existence?
-Can you demonstrate that an always existing Cosmic field needs such a concept?
Quoting Philosophim
-Correct but Since our current indications (Cosmic quantum fluctuations) and logic (non existence not being a state) point to something existing eternally...why making up a first cause?
Quoting Philosophim
-Yes that is a common characteristic among explanations invoking "magic". No data...no limitations.
Its like Phlogiston, MIasma, Philosopher's Stone, Orgone Energy ...all over again.
As I said this is NOT a topic for a philosophical discussion.
Its more of having people pointing out to you your fallacies and gaps in reasoning.
Quoting Philosophim
-Nothing, because Necessity NEEDS to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed logically. Logic is not an adequate way to argue for Necessary and Sufficient of metaphysical mechanisms of reality (ontology). We have made so many many mistakes in the past but some of us insist in the same tactics.
Quoting Philosophim
If we ignore all the fallacies and problems, there is one reason to limit adding up things in a "magical" cause...and that is Parsimony.
Quoting Philosophim
-Correct, as I said Unfalsifiable claims can not be tested as possible or impossible mainly because they carry no limitations. Vague concepts have zero characteristic to evaluate. They are absolute declarations posing as Panacea for all mysteries.
Again this is not philosophy.
Quoting Philosophim
-Not only that. Our current picture of the cosmos dismiss the necessity...and obviously the sufficiency of a first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
-If you design an answer without limitations then....there aren't any. Now we know particles pop in and out of existence all the time and we can observe them by viewing the affect they have on the particles of our universe.
When you use scientific knowledge to argue about your cosmology (particle with velocity) I suggest to accept all the epistemology and avoid cherry picking aspects that suit a specific narrative. Facts are facts and should be respected as a whole.
Quoting Philosophim
Our current physics and QM point to an area, not a singular point, that would make the role of a "first particle" relevant to this discussion. Now this is way in the Metaphysical realm so any conclusion beyond this point will be, by definition pseudo philosophical/scientific.
Quoting Philosophim
-Why use the word god when most of the people believing in this concept don't recognize the narrative you are placing it in and what happened to Parsimony? Answering Mysteries with mysteries is not philosophy.
Again that huge jump from "a particle" to a god playing pool with it can only be a subject of a pseudo philosophical narrative.
Quoting Philosophim
-Well plausibility implies probability...and that is a mathematical and statistical concept.
I would like to know how you arrived to that conclusion without any verified cases of "gods creating universes" and "universes created NOt from a god". How on earth can you even talk about plausibilities when you don't even know whether a god is possible to begin with.
Its Alchemy and chemical transmutation all over again. People wasted time and money for the "plausibility" of producing gold from lead when chemical transmutation isn't even possible!!!
Why our "Philosophers" fail to learn basic things from the errors of the past and what it means to talk about plausibility without first demonstrating possibility?
Quoting Philosophim
-Sloppy transition. I don't know why you connect the unfounded plausibility of a god with an argument against his existence!
Again Possibility and impossibility of an existential claim needs to be demonstrated objectively not assumed logically.
-"While we likely cannot find what the first causes are in our universe, we can prove causes exist."
-Causes exist.....that doesn't mean that a first cause was not a routine natural cosmic one(change in its energetic state) or the cause of our universe (this universe itself) was the first one in the cosmic history.
-" If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality"
-Just because you include sentences about the universe and sentences about god in the same paragraph that doesn't mean that those are premises of the same argument...just saying.
Quoting Philosophim
-We are in agreement with the first statements. Objective evidence are necessary for every existential claim.
Your second statement is problematic. Possibility ALSO demands objective evidence. You can not just declare something to be possible without previous verified examples of its possibility to exist.
Quoting Philosophim
-Sure, but I don't know how good it will be to explain a made up "necessity" (first cause) since our facts point to existence being a necessary state for the cosmos.(empirically and logically).,
Agreed, but you don't have enough data to assume that non-existence cannot be either. Space is assumed in everything we measure. What you're proposing is an ether, which has not been proven either.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, non-existence would be a lack of being. The opposite of the state of being. I am not introducing the supernatural here, other people are. If you believe a first cause is supernatural, I'm noting it is a natural logical necessity.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, it is not a theological one. This is the philosophical topic of what we can logically conclude if at least one first cause is a necessary logical requirement. Origin stories are often tied in with a philosophical God, of which I use here. This is in no way theological, as I am not attributing to any one theology in this discussion.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
See here for the proof. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 This topic assumes you agree with the proof. If you do not agree with the proof, feel free to put your response there and I'll discuss. This topic is intended with the idea that you accept a first cause is logically necessary.
And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
If something exists eternally, then it is not caused by anything prior. That itself would be a first cause. And again, your denial of non-existence is not logical, only a belief.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Did you read and understand the entire OP? I think your thinking I'm making a claim that I'm not. This is a common problem among atheists who think I'm making an argument for God. Please do not let your emotions prevent you from reading and understanding the entire topic. Read the referenced topic if you believe it is illogical for me to conclude a first cause is logically necessary.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Logical necessity is demonstrated with abstract logic. Existential necessity is demonstrated objectively. I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary. What we logically conclude may not exist when tested, I think that is a given all can agree on. If you want to understand why I conclude a first cause is logically necessary, again, reference the OP where I go over that logic.
You need to explain why my poiQuoting Nickolasgaspar
The idea I presented is the most simple and necessary explanation. You can't just claim I'm not using Occum's Razor here, please explain why you believe there cannot be more than one first cause under the logic I presented?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
The falsifiability of any one thing that is claimed as a first cause, is that it has something prior that caused it. The falsifiability of a thing that is claimed to have a prior cause, is that it does not. All I noted is that while there are falsifiable states, for some, it may be impossible to test. That is not due to a lack of falsifiability, it is due to a lack of information and testing capability. Concluding our limitations in the ability to test something is a fine and valid point in logic and science.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This argument was not done with scientific knowledge. This was simply the logical consequence of examining what a first cause would entail. Stop lecturing. You are making a lot of assumptions and mistakes by not understanding the argument. Seek to understand first please, then feel free to critique.
The rest of your points irrelevant, because you are making points without understanding the argument. Once you examine the referenced OP (and possibly comment there) and demonstrate that you also understand the OP of this argument, then we'll see if the rest of your points even need to be addressed.
The Catholic Scholastics were arguing in favor of their bible-god : paradoxically, both a timeless abstract concept, and a historical personality acting in space-time. But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. So, the later expansion of human scientific knowledge did not answer the philosophical question of "why something instead of nothing". The modern Big Bang theory has given substance to what was just an intuition in ancient times : the contingency (dependence) of our space-time existence on a priori causation.
Moreover, the definition of "existence" is different for Scientists (physical observation) and Philosophers (meta-physical prerequisite). The verb "to be" refers to a future state that follows from "becoming". So, the Necessary Being is supposed to be the meta-physical Cause of becoming into physical being. It's a tricky distinction that would only appeal to speculative philosophers, and not to pragmatic scientists. Which is why our modern knowledge of physical reality still does not "negate" the ancient intuition that a First Cause is necessary to explain the observed chain of causation in which new forms always emerge from old forms. For Plato, his ultimate Form is not an actual thing, but the Potential for all things.
Plato & Aristotle did not believe in magic or serendipity, so they reasoned that human existence was not due to Chance or Accident, but to a pre-existing Cause. They didn't refer to that dynamic causal power as "god" though, because the gods of their time were merely super-humans with limited powers. Instead, they used more abstract terms, such as "Form", or "Logos" or "First Cause", or "Potential" to describe concepts that are beyond human experience, but amenable to human reasoning & imagination. Their logical-god was not Real, but Ideal; not Actual but Potential. :smile:
Entelechy : realization of potential
Contingency : A possibility; something which may or may not happen ; not necessary
Potential & Actual :
These concepts, in modified forms, remained very important into the Middle Ages, influencing the development of medieval theology in several ways. In modern times the dichotomy has gradually lost importance, as understandings of nature and deity have changed. However the terminology has also been adapted to new uses, as is most obvious in words like energy and dynamic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Entelecheia_in_modern_philosophy_and_biology
Note -- Physicists assume that Energy (causal power) has always existed, of necessity.
Necessary Being :
Many have thought that if God exists necessarily, there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, or that if there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, God exists necessarily. But both claims are false. Some have used philosophical views of the nature of necessity – for example, that all necessity is conventional, a matter of how we choose to use words – to challenge God’s necessary existence. But the theories which best support these challenges have fallen from favour, and in fact, even if one accepts the theories, the challenges fail.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/necessary-being/v-1
Note -- Since Plato & Aristotle seem to have invented the notion of Logical Necessity, it was not a convention for them. But their definitions have since become conventional for philosophers, along with many other fundamental concepts of Inductive & Deductive reasoning. They are now conventional, because they are necessary for philosophical purposes.
-Well read again what you wrote. "non-existence cannot be either." You literary put "non existence" and "be" in the same sentence. If we are talking about any type or state of being then we are not talking about non being (non existence).
"Space" is not assumed. Its is a quantifiable phenomenon in reality. (things don't exist all at the same spatial location).
I don't know what "proven" means to you but we Objectively verify spatial qualities in everything around us every single time we interact with them. Any existential claim SHOULD be demonstrable by the same standards we use to verify spatial qualities in things in existence.
Quoting Philosophim
-This is exactly what I pointed out in your first comment....you can not state that non existence is a state of being because its the lack of being.
Well god is a supernatural "first cause". But again for first cause to be a logical necessity, it needs the facts to make it necessary. As far as we can tell, its unnecessary since a state of being is the only state that it can "be".
Quoting Philosophim
-To be precise its only a theological when you assume the supernatural to be real and to play the role of the first cause.
The problem is bigger because our current facts do not justify such a discussion on a first cause. So we are dealing with a pseudo philosophical, begging the question fallacy that is in direct conflict with current knowledge about the state of the cosmos and Logic.
Quoting Philosophim
-I asked you how can you prove these claims and you point me to a topic with the condition that I need to accept what you need to prove!!!!
Its not reasonable to demand from others to assume what you NEED to demonstrate objectively to be true. That's circular reasoning....
Quoting Philosophim
-The answer is We don't know and we can not assume or draw an conclusions from something we can not investigate. If something exists for ever, (a quantum noise with fluctuations) it doesn't demand a first cause. What it needs a first case is processes that rise from those fluctuations and their build ups, like our universe.
Quoting Philosophim
-Correct an eternal energetic cosmos needs no first cause to exist. It isn't a first cause...its the cause of existence in general.
Now I don't deny non existence. I point out the nonsensical claim of non existence as state of "being". I don't know what " non existence existing prior of existence" even means...and I don't pretend to know.
Can you elaborate?
I don't know why this sounds logical to you!
Quoting Philosophim
-Since I addressed every single paragraph you already know that I read and understood the entire topic. Again I am only pointing out that The god hypothesis can not be consider plausible if one first demonstrates it to be possible. The examples I gave show this problem with other "philosophical artifacts" that were believed to be plausible explanations but turned out to be impossible or at least u necessary.
Quoting Philosophim
And this is what forces us in to errors. Existence is demonstrated objectively through verifying Necessity and Sufficiency. The concept of first cause or god are neither necessary or sufficient plus our current knowledge render them irrelevant at best.
-" I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary."
-Sure and I point out to you that our current scientific facts render that claim illogical since an eternal cosmos solves the problem created by the statement " non existence existing before existence" plus it is in agreement with what we measure in the cosmic background.
Quoting Philosophim
-The problem is that by using logic independent of available facts, we can conclude at anything we want , based on our biases and predispositions.
But as have stated again and again you have a huge problem with "non existence...existing" and an other problem with a cosmic energetic background existing parallel to our universe that renders "first cause" irrelevant at best...or a begging the question at worst.
Nothing in your argument is in agreement with logic or available facts so I don't know why you insist that its "logically necessary".
Quoting Philosophim
-You have a bigger problem because our current facts do not demand a first cause for the state of existence. You multiply entities that are unecessary to explain existence.
Quoting Philosophim
-I am not sure you understand what it means for a claim to be falsifiable. You need to present a way that we can test and objectively falsify your metaphysical claim on first cause.
Quoting Philosophim
-Yes...those are the reasons why your claim is UNFALSIFIABLE! Again I am not sure you fully understand this criterion.
Quoting Philosophim
-this is why I pointed out that that the arguments is pseudo philosophical....because it excluded the second most important step in any philosophical inquiry....that is Knowledge/Science/Physika.
-"Stop lecturing."
-I will answer ...No, I will try to see the huge problem in your reasoning and why an unnecessary artifacts is not logically necessary
Quoting Philosophim
I fully understand the argument and I stress out why it is a pseudo philosophical one.
Its lack Epistemic value, Up to date scientific information, weird concepts (non existence existing before existence) etc.
Quoting Philosophim
-You are dodging the most important critique of your arguments and this is why your reply was so problematic. I hope this points help you understand the gaps in your reasoning and why this is NOT a philosophical topic.
Existence is either way paradoxical.
You can find a system where it's necessary and a system where it's not necessary.
We don't know what is the truth, maybe after death we'll know, or we might not know either, this life may all be a dream within a dream ad infinitum, waking up from one dream to the next...
I'm the author. No, you don't. I welcome critique, but when the author informs you that you do not understand the argument and you are making false assumptions, listen. This is not your time for your ego or sense of self-superiority. If you're here for that, leave. If you want to discuss the issues in a respectable manner, then seek to understand as you critique please.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I am not asserting non-existence is a state of being. If this is all about the semantics, I'm saying non-existence is a concept of reality, and we quantify that in relation to things that do exist.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is fine and is not in disagreement with what I'm saying.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
What caused "state of being" to "be"? Why is there something instead of nothing? This does not avoid the logical point of the first cause. Again, if you are going to argue that a first cause is not necessary, please go to the argument I've linked and show why there.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Please read more carefully before reacting. I noted that the argument, the evidence you asked for, is in the other topic. This topic assumes you agree with the previous topic. If you do not, go there and prove it wrong. I'm not going to re-write the previous topic again. Again, I am not stating you need to accept that the previous topic is true, I'm stating that THIS topic assumes that you've accepted the previous topic as true.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes it does. I just noted that in the quote. If something exists forever, then it IS the first cause. That is because there is no prior causality that determines its existence. The rest of the argument I make in the OP follows from this.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, it is the first cause. Taken entirely up the causal chain, we arrive at the point where we realize something has existed forever. There is no prior causality to this. Meaning the reason for its existence is not bound by prior laws, it just "is". If this confuses you, read the link to the first topic.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Incorrect. Current scientific fact does not negate my claim at all. You just haven't understood what a first cause was. Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility. I'm not stating its wrong, but you shouldn't state that its ascertained knowledge either. My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ok, if you want to bring it up to that level that's fine. But then I'm going to ask you the same thing. How do you falsify the idea that the universe has been eternal? We can't very well travel back to the infinite past can we? In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality. We have a logical concept of it, but have never verified it exists.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better.
At this point, if you agree that a first cause is logically necessary, we can continue the conversation here. If you believe a first cause is not logically necessary, then please post in the linked topic that addresses all the proofs and arguments for that. At this point, I don't want to derail this topic any further. Feel free to quote my response here in that other topic as well.
If you believe that, please go here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 and point out why the OP there is wrong. This topic assumes agreement with the former topic.
Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence.
-The problem is that you don't understand the critique....
You just chose this trick to avoid challenging your misconceptions.
This discussion can never yield any philosophical conclusions because a. you don't have the data to make such metaphysical claims. b. you don't have a way to prove "god" possible so calling it plausible is nonsensical and a cheat c. Talking for non existence existing before existence is also nonsensical and d.Assume a first case in a cosmos when our current facts indicate no need for such a thing.
-"Quoting Philosophim"
-You didn't address my question (Again). Do you think that non existence was a state before the state of existence.....and if that was the case, how non existence can exist as a state????
Quoting Philosophim
-Well you claimed that we assume the existence of space, while I pointed out to you that we can observe it and objectively quantify it....so how cam my objection be in agreement with your claim????
Of course we are in disagreement. You deny the existence or better you claim that we assume the existence of something that can be objectively quantified.!
Quoting Philosophim
1. nothing is existence is the default condition of the cosmos.
2. "why" questions are not meaningful questions when we try to address facts of Nature. Assuming purpose and intention in Nature is a teleological fallacy. You need to prove purpose/intention before searching for the goal behind those mental states.
3. Of course it does, when existence of the cosmos seems to be the default condition....how can any question about first cause be logical?
4. Your arguments do not help the case of first cause. first of all , as I said facts about the Cosmos render first cause irrelevant. Why is this so difficult for you? You can not ignore those facts and go on claiming that you have a logical argument! Reason is contingent to facts. You are reasonable only when your conclusions aren't in conflict with facts or founded on them.
Quoting Philosophim
-I am not sure you understand how the burden of proof works. If your argument was sound then you would point out the objective facts supportive of your premises. Its your burden to provide those facts not mine to prove your argument wrong. I can not accept your previous topic as true because you have to prove it to be true through objective evidence.
Have you done that?...or are we dealing with an other logically sound speculation?
Quoting Philosophim
First cause for what...for its existence? It can only be the medium where a first cause can act for our local representation of the universe to exist. Are you referring to that?
The cosmos seems to just exist without the need of a first cause. The cosmos on its own can not be the first cause. Fluctuations within its fabric can be identified as first cause, but this is not what you mean when you talk about non existence preexisting before existence...right?
Quoting Philosophim
-So you use the term "first cause" as a vague concept even if within the cosmos there are specific events that we can be labeled as first cause. So you are not interested in finding out the actual first cause of our universes(or other universes) but you feel the need to stay closer to the religious or idealistic aspect of the term? How is this helpful, I wonder.
In science we see cosmos NOT as the first cause but as the medium that provides the conditions for a first cause to occur and the raw material for a process like our universe to be possible.
Quoting Philosophim
-Of course it does. Science and logic render your claim nonsensical. There is no need of a first cause for the cosmos(existence) and non need to assume non existence as a state of whatever that is.
-"Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility."
-Of course it ISN'T Deduced, science is a useful tool based on induction...not on tautologies.
The concept of cosmos is based on what we know to be possible(existence). Non existence is not known to be a possible of the world.
-"My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.["
-you keep making this vague claim but you fail to define "first cause for what''? For existence? if yes then No , first cause is not needed for something that is eternal.
Calling that eternal thing "first cause" is sophistry and word game. I already explained this in detail
You just decide to call "first cause what already is in existence. that is pretty lame IMHO.
Quoting Philosophim
-You can not falsify it. I am only pointing out the available indications we have about a cosmic substrate and how it solves the impossibility of a non existent state of being.
-"In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality."
-Correct its a concept, like non existence. The difference between those two concepts is that we have direct indications of a cosmic substrate when we have zero indications for non existence being a state before existence.!
-"I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand."
- I will happily remove any attitude I have if you remove your sophistries and dishonest use of words.
I hope you listen to your suggestions and stop calling "first cause" something that seems already be in existence.
The fact is that we don't know whether something always existed and in what state, The issue I have with your "philosophy" is that you think you can arrive to logical conclusions when the idea of non existence itself is nonsensical.
-"No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better."
-So you keep repeating this sophistry but you don't point out what exactly I didn't understand.
Do you think that non existence can ever be a state?
Do you believe that god can be a plausible explanation when you have never demonstrated that a first cause is necessary for the cosmos to exist or that god is possible?
Ok, I've been nice, but you just seem interested in your own topic. As the author, I've informed you that you don't understand the topic. You are not entirely off base, but you're off base enough that you keep making straw men arguments. If you were honest, after I informed you that you did not understand, you would have read the other topic. Its obvious you did not. Further, I've asked you politely that if you didn't agree with the assessment that a first cause was logically necessary, to take your reply to that linked topic so we could discuss the evidence.
Your refusal to listen means this conversation is pointless. I'm not going to take the time and effort needed to reply again to someone who doesn't seem like they're listening, and seems more interested in their own voice than a conversation. If you want to have that conversation, then take what you've written and go to the other topic so this one is not derailed further. If not, we're done.
from: Is Philosophy Stupid?© 2013
byRichard Carrier, Ph.D.
"What is pseudo-philosophy?
Philosophy that relies:
1. on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. on factually false or undemonstrated premises.
3. isn't corrected when exposed.
All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy."
So, you were exposed and you are not willing to correct your arguments or your vague language! I understand that acknowledging your mistakes in public is very difficult and I don't expect anything more than "I am the author and you don't understand" type of come backs. I only hope that by standards will see the problems in your reasoning and puzzle the pieces in my critique.
Take care and good luck to you and your worldview.
And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw manQuoting Nickolasgaspar when I've clearly told you I don't claim any supernaturalism in the OP.
I didn't expect anything more. Take care and good luck as well.
A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause.
Velocity is relative (object A has a velocity relative to object B), not absolute - so there is nothing for a first cause object to have a velocity relative to.
I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system.
I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. :joke:
Starting Philosophic Problem :
One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy is related with the most meaningful philosophic notions, that is, with the categories of "being" and "non-being".
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Onto/OntoSolo.htm
BEING :
[i]* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
* Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
G*D :
[i]* An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, REASON, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
* I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
-First of all I don't strawman your position, just because you put the words differently or say the same thing with different words that doesn't make my summation of your claims a strawman.
I took the time to address every single paragraph of your opening statement for this thread.
Your "philosophy" was really problematic and the explanations you offered as a response to my critique were even worse.
So I apologize but I am not going to invest my time dismantling an other topic when I already know the average quality of the arguments I will find in there...at least not today
When our calm rational conversations become frictional, it's usually due to some prejudicial unstated presumption. And I think you have hit upon one here. The wet-blanket dismissive label, "Pseudo-philosophy", eliminates a whole universe of possible topics for rational discourse. Hence, channeling the dialogue into a narrow canyon for ambush by the forces of "true-philosophy". Fortunately, you didn't take the bait, to follow the feint. :cool:
Before going to sleep logged in again shortly to give you the thump! :up:
An empiricist will say that. A rationalist philosopher might argue that it’s a matter of abductive inference - which means reasoning from effect to cause. They might point to something like the "anthropic cosmological principle", and argue that, even though it seemed likely that the Universe should emerge from the Big Bang into a state of chaos, it actually emerged in just such a way as to enable the formation of stars, complex matter, and then living beings who can reflect on all of the above. Of course many philosophers will disagree, but the point is that the argument is not based on evidence as such but on an interpretation of the meaning of existence.
Quoting Philosophim
That is not supported by, or informed by, philosophical theology. 'God' is not simply one factor in a causal chain; there's an ontological distinction between God and nature (hence, it might be a form of dualism.) The major distinction made in the traditional arguments is between 'contingent' and 'necessary' being. The way you present your argument treats God as simply the first in a series of events - presumably just another contigent being. But if God is uncaused, then such a being is not contingent and not dependent on anything. So there's an ontological distinction here - a distinction in kind - which I don't think your OP is reflecting.
Of course there are a great many philosophical conundrums and difficulties in these arguments but then it is a discussion of the origin of the Universe, so there's no reason to think it should be something easy to fathom. But I suggest finding a proper presentation of the cosmological argument to get a better handle on what 'necessary being' actually means.
Yes. A first physical cause is logically necessary. This first cause, leading to the emergence of thermodynamic time, can't be itself a part of the irreversible chain of cause and effect. This non-thermodynamic primordial time-symmetric causal mechanism itself can be immersed in a wider context of thermodynamic principles, signaling when time can be kick-started.
Well, there is possibly more than one first cause. A first cause means the first cause in a chain of causality. It is quite possible that first causes can pop into existence even if other chains of causality exist. But, if there was nothing at one time, and then something appeared, the lack of anything else wouldn't negate that it appeared. There would of course be no outside observer watching for the first appearance of something, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it still makes a sound.
Quoting Relativist
I'm actually not positing what first causes are. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on what are first causes, but proving one is difficult. Not that we shouldn't stop trying!
Nice posts Gnomon! I appreciate the citations and nice presentation. :smile:
Hello Wayfarer, good to hear from you as always! So, the whole point in realizing a first cause is logically necessary, is realizing there is no limitations as to what a first cause can be. We may look at the universe and believe, "Its unlikely this could happen by chance," but there's actually nothing to back that.
Probability and likelihood are based on the prior rules of causality that lead to outcomes we are aware of. We think, "Well inorganic matter doesn't suddenly organize itself into an engine, only intelligence can do that." And we're correct when prior causality is involved. But when something has no prior causality, anything can happen. Its why we readily accept that a God, possibly the most complex and powerful thing a human can imagine, was not designed, but was a first cause.
The problem is, this can also be applied to anything else. We cannot say it is unlikely that a universe formed from particles simply appearing, because there is no prior causality that would make it more, or less likely to occur.
So is a God possible. Logically, 100%. But so is anything else you can imagine that was the start of the universe. As such, a God is not logically necessary to explain the universe's origins, it is one of an infinite imagined possibilities of what could be. Despite the unlimited potential of first causes, ultimately, what actually happened are the first causes within our universe today. Those can only be gleaned by going up the chains of causality to find them.
Thus, the potential is only there when we do not know what those first causes are. But the reality of what those first causes are can only be gleaned by finding evidence.
Quoting Wayfarer
Perhaps my OP was written poorly then. My point is that any first cause is not contingent or dependent on anything. Meaning if I do not know the origin of the universe, but know there was a first cause, all imagined and unimagined possibilities are equally as likely. A God, not a God, some explosions, a calm entrance, eternal existence, etc. None or contingent or dependent on any prior causality (thus rules or restrictions), and so any were possible.
The 'anthropic principle' is quite well established, actually. It comprises observations about the fact that there are a small number of constants which, had they been different by a very small degree, would have prevented the formation of matter, stars, and living organisms. This line of reasoning goes back to the astronomer Fred Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance (which you can read about here) later formalised in a paper by Brandon Carter. (There's a current thread on 'fine tuning', going back a few years but recently active again.)
The rest of your response, really, is just that 'anything is possible' - which is not actually an argument. And unless you have some idea what you're looking for, then there's no way to look for or assess evidence or what should be regarded as evidence.
That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious.
In almost any other case, you would be right. The difference here is that its a logical conclusion. Anything was possible is not the argument, its the end result.
Quoting Wayfarer
Agreed.
Thank you. A cautious mind is a careful mind. It is only a logical argument, and not an evidenced argument. Still, the origin of the universe is something likely outside of evidence, and logic may be all that we ever have.
Is instantiation into existence instantaneous, or does the process necessitate elapsing of time?
Hi ucarr, instantiation of a first cause is the moment of inception.