Could God be Non-Material?
I argue there must be a first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1) and for the purposes of this post, I’m assuming the first cause exists and is/was God.
In the beginning there was no time (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). What about space? 14 billion years ago spacetime started; so it must of been created by something beyond spacetime.
So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime.
We know God cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). Is space possible without time? Maybe not suggesting God is spaceless (dimensionless) as well?
So a key question is, can space exist without time? If no, God is non-material. Can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So it appears space cannot exist without time (so God must be spaceless).
What evidence do we have for the non-material? It is understandably hard to come by. I listed a few possibilities here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4920/could-a-non-material-substrate-underly-reality/p1
It could be argued that photons are sort of non-material; they experience no time and no distance (space).
If God is material and subject to change then he might be dead by now (or dead and alive at the same time maybe... he is timeless). If God is non-material, then he’s not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That would allow him to neatly sidestep the whole God is dead problem, so this is an important question.
In the beginning there was no time (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). What about space? 14 billion years ago spacetime started; so it must of been created by something beyond spacetime.
So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime.
We know God cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). Is space possible without time? Maybe not suggesting God is spaceless (dimensionless) as well?
So a key question is, can space exist without time? If no, God is non-material. Can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So it appears space cannot exist without time (so God must be spaceless).
What evidence do we have for the non-material? It is understandably hard to come by. I listed a few possibilities here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4920/could-a-non-material-substrate-underly-reality/p1
It could be argued that photons are sort of non-material; they experience no time and no distance (space).
If God is material and subject to change then he might be dead by now (or dead and alive at the same time maybe... he is timeless). If God is non-material, then he’s not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That would allow him to neatly sidestep the whole God is dead problem, so this is an important question.
Comments (310)
Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting.
From the first, I assumed the only reason for making such a flawed argument...was as an attempt for a backdoor "proof of the existence of a god."
I am more sure of that now, after reading this OP, then ever.
Since you are exploring whether this supposed god is material or non-material...why do you refer to it as "God"...the way you do in this following sentence, "So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime."
You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that?
And why do you refer to it as "he?"
Just want to be sure about these things before getting involved in the discussion itself.
No-one has pointed out any flaws. Care to expand? I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. I would just love to debate some of this stuff with people but no-one comes up with any counter arguments.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am using God as an abbreviation of 'timeless first cause'
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is conventional to refer to God as a he. God has no sex, is not the product of bi-sexual reproduction, so it is just a convention that people use.
Several of us have pointed out the flaws.
At my age...best not to.
Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example.
You honestly do not see it...do you?
If you mean a "timeless first cause"...use that.
Nobody uses "he" to denote a timeless first cause...which is what you say you mean.
God???
Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on earth is there to gain by doing that?
Quoting Frank Apisa
My first cause I suppose was sexual intercourse of my parents. Everything has a cause apart from the timeless first cause surely?
Quoting Frank Apisa
"Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
So the convention of using 'him' to refer to God stems from the Judaic tradition I grant you.
A great book to read that addresses this issue to some extent is called "Flatland". It was written by Abbott Abbott. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein.
you can probably request "Flatland" from your local library.
I have heard about it but never read it. 'A Sphere' demonstrates to 'A Square' the nature of 3D by lowering and raising himself through Flatland. Sounds brilliant... must read it some time.
Nothing can be apart from spacetime, either.
Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. By something not of spacetime. Space can't exist without time so that something was spaceless as well as timeless.
All we know is that the big bang appears to have occurred about that time, if our theories are correct. That doesn't amount to spacetime being created then, or at any time. We have no idea about that.
Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time.
Exactly. I can show time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). So space does not exist 'before' time was created. So the creator of both space and time must be spaceless and timeless.
No, you can't. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again I show the problems with your idiotic arguments. You're incapable of learning.
Even this response is completely idiotic. I just explained that there can't be a "creator" that's aside from spacetime. It's incoherent.
No, you haven't. You do a combo of just plowing ahead without understanding and just ignoring, then repeating a script like a mantra.
Then you start another thread where you repeat the same idiocy yet again. You're as OCDish as the antinatalists in that.
Not surprising that you'd think that.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The theory of special relativity dictates that the measurement of time is only in accordance with how fast particles are moving. In the case of a photon and all the particles that are of a similar size or small than a photon: the x vector, y vector, and z vector can never be combined to exceed C (speed of light). A clock that approaches the speed C will slow down in terms of the way it tells time.
This has been shown on airplanes carrying clocks over long periods of time. Time can only be measured in relation to moving objects. If there is no objects there is no way for humans to measure time.
read the book Flatland. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein. You've probably seen magazine covers saying the Universe is like one giant computer. Read those articles too if you like.
People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them.
Obviously from the Book of Devans. BUT you never cite the chapter and verse.
Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause.
But...like I said, you are stone-headed.
That can be a good quality.
No, Devans...you cannot.
Neither could Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman...or the many, many others who pondered this problem.
Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start.
Could you identify the 'prerequisite assumption'?
It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist) so it must of been created by something external to the universe - something not of nature - something supernatural.
I do not dismiss them; I read each one, think about it and post a valid counter-counter argument. Or is someone comes up with a valid counter argument, I acknowledge it and stop posting about that particular idea.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I spent a lot of time justifying the existence of the first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1). No-one has come up with any valid counter arguments. So I have done more than 'posit' a first cause; I have shown there must be a first cause - how can anything exist without a first cause?
Quoting Frank Apisa
No-one has come up with a valid counter argument. And it makes sense. The Big Bang sure looks like a start of time. Entropy is too low for there not to be a start of time.
The crux of your over-all argument has been logically rebutted by several people...and YOU DO simply dismiss them.
You may not be able to see that...but it is so.
Your argument is nonsense...a rehashing of the argument of Aquinas...and the argument of Aquinas was nonsense also.
You have a blind spot about this...and I suspect it has to do with a desire to show that a GOD must exist.
Fact is...a GOD...or gods...MAY exist...or may not.
There is no need for any gods (your supposed need is manufactured and gratuitous to your ends. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose no gods can exist.
On the Internet we hear arguments from advocates of both camps...and attempts to get them to see the flaws in their arguments are met with laughable denial.
THINK ABOUT THAT. Actually think about it. You are making a categorical statement about something YOU ought not to be making such a statement. YOU are pontificating.
You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand.
My comment to you is not based on counter arguments. It is something more basic:
I ask you to consider why you suppose YOU have done what the greatest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do...
...and why you suppose it is so easy to see.
Why do you SUPPOSE that is?
Why could someone like Albert Einstein not see it?
Why could someone like Stephen Hawking not see it?
Why could someone like Richard Feynman not see it?
Why could someone like Carl Sagan not see it?
You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph.
Only time will tell.
I'm not clear on how this is a response to my post.
No, all people do is say 'that argument was dismissed elsewhere' but they won't say where. It is very frustrating that people are not even engaging with my arguments.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is a fact that from time to time, new discoveries are made. It is good to be open minded about the possibility that could happen here. The way to find out is to engage in meaningful debate, that way we will discover if my ideas are any good or not. Just dismissing my ideas out of hand (IE saying they have been dismissed elsewhere which is BS) is not a very scientific/philosophical approach.
" Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. — Devans99
All we know is that the big bang appears to have occurred about that time, if our theories are correct. That doesn't amount to spacetime being created then, or at any time. We have no idea about that.
Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time. " Terrapin Station
Specifically (And the same with time) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time"
That is why i mentioned special relativity and its relationship to matter and time. See above posts
The first time I read that SciFi/fantasy novella was probably 20+ years before you were born.
don't make assumptions about my age. and no i'm not telling you how old i am. That is good that you read that book.
But it's okay to make assumptions about what I've read/what I'm familiar with?
Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? Don't be so sensitive. Show me where i made an assumption about what you have read?
"Read the book Flatland" . . . and don't be so sensitive about your age.
Was i supposed to say "have you read the book flatland?". I'm sorry. My deepest apologies. Your being a troll Terrapin Station.
Telling someone to read a book assumes they haven't. Why not assume that they have read the book in question?
ok. i think that is besides the main point. Sorry for getting off topic.
How could anything set of the Big Bang yet still survive? Now if it was non-material… maybe it could…
Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material?
the viewers of the forum would have to see the context of the other posts to understand what i'm about to say but here goes:
matter or particles are measured in terms of speed in relation to clocks but clocks are constrained in there accuracy due to special relativity (see above post). If you have no particles it very hard to measure time.
To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. Atleast the way we see particles. The problem with the OP is that it is conjecture. Whether it is proven to be true conjecture only time will tell.
The OP is saying an entity or creature that has 4, 5, 6 or more dimensions may have set in motion the 3/4 (space time) universe we live in. Does that help?
Material. They're ways that our brains function.
How would you prove that thoughts are a product of a 3/4 dimensional (space/time) object. Perhaps thoughts exist outside the space/time continuum. We could both ask each other what the source of thoughts are and we would both just be making conjecture.
I would say that if you have no particles you have no time to measure.
Quoting christian2017
I don't think there's any conjecture to it. An event with no material is incoherent.
Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error.
Quoting christian2017
The idea of anything existing outside of space or time is incoherent.
I guess our disagreement is over whether there are 5th dimensional objects. A good video to watch is "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.
its not incoherent but it is hard to prove without future technology or some phenomenon that shows an consistency with current understanding of physics.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error.-Terrapin Station
This is why we'll never come to an agreement based on your current beliefs. That is a whole another forum topic.
Yeah, it is. You could attempt to make it coherent, though. No one has been successful in that yet.
Quoting christian2017
Is that what you're shooting for? Coming to an agreement?
? What? Ofcourse or atleast come closer to that threshold.
Quoting Terrapin Station
true
Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless.
Oh the irony!
There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'?
I can promise you that this has nothing to do with the conversation. This god the OP is refering to could be Zeus, Allah, Jehovah or god xyz. It really is irrelevant to the OP.
No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?"
Perhaps the reason people can't agree on anything in these discussions is that each person is talking about a different 'God.'
ok
I doubt it. I think its a lack of understanding of advanced geometry and even a lack of understanding of chemistry and physics. We should start with Newtonian physics and move up.
But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you? -YuZhonglu
To some measure yes. Each person's experiences greatly shapes the decisions they make and their notions of what is true.
Prove it.
sure. What does that have to do with the OP.
But if Person A is talking about a different God than the OP, doesn't that mean Person A didn't actually answer the OP's question? 'Cuz what the OP is asking for is whether HIS concept of God is material or not, whereas Person A in his answer is referring to Person A's concept of God.
i don't feel i should have to explain this in relation to the OP but:
the OP is saying god could fit just about any basic model given in religions of the world. From collective consceince ranging all the way to Allah or Jehohah. But he is refering to something that has the ability to make decisions or that thinks it can make decisions. Collective conscience falls under those criteria it just is a concept that is not quickly articulated.
i'll pull up a definition of collective consceince and we'll use that as the definition of god for this OP until the OP clarifies this
EDIT: Hyperlinks are lazy.
The notion that even though we each testify to different things ultimately we are all many voices inside one being that transcends the whole universe. I believe if explained a certain way that this can be attributed to any religion. Its like a world wide web but is usually given an eternal like aspect. There are many variations and sub variations on this concept.
yeah i should have used the word extend instead of transcend for the sake of argument. You are correct. As far as alot of things in modern science as well as in religion too, yes alot things don't make sense. I gave you a definition of Collective Soul because you didn't want a hyperlink.
Is the OP's question even answerable?
Just a tad. But it doesn't really matter because he doesn't listen and in is in denial, so nothing we say will have any impact. He'll just repeat himself.
thats a good question. The OP does point to the fact that how we percieve our world could be a reflection on the time in history that we live in and....
The OP would have to go into tremendously more detail to get his/her point across.
Thoughts themselves (as we experience them) are material? Is that what you are saying? Can they be measured, seen, or detected?
Every argument for the existence of the supernatural begins with an assumption that it exists. The argument fails before it reaches an explanation.
i guess he was saying this creature or entity isn't really supernatural but is in fact a phenomenon that can be explained through advanced geometry and other fields of math and science.
Noosphere?
I looked up Noosphere on wikipedia. I would have to study that essay for about a day to understand it. My definition was based on various people who believed in new age things, who have described similar things over the years.
Explain why the universe can't have been an incidental result of some greater process and so on and so on until the explanation is vast enough that humans will be extinct before they reach an infinitesimal understanding even of their own solar system, let alone what's beyond the limits of the observable universe. It is lazy and defensive to attribute it to the supernatural.
We can say that it must all have a beginning because everything we observe seems to have a beginning, yet if we're to base truth on observation, then we have to observe a creator before claiming it as if it was truth, and to claim it as truth without observation is just a time-consuming distraction. We can observe this time-consuming distraction and its negative effects on humanity by leafing through several thousand years of documented history, a large percentage of which has been wasted on claims of the supernatural for which there's no observable evidence. Wars have been waged and time and money squandered on worship and construction while humanity suffers under the supervision of imaginary sky parents--sky parents with distinctly human characteristics and distinctly natural habits.
this is not historically accurate. we're getting off topic.
I'm on topic, and I didn't refer to a specific historical instance. Maybe you could elaborate on that, I'm not sure what you feel is inaccurate.
Quoting whollyrolling
i'm not getting into that. Start another topic and i'll reply to that topic on religion and it's role in world violence.
I'm not talking only about violence, and it's not the main focus of my comment, just a portion. It's a relevant portion because belief in the supernatural has been used to justify atrocity more than it's been used to promote benevolence, and it's acted as a catalyst for rage among differing cultures. I'm talking about a species wasting time chasing invisible friends and carving statues that combine animals and humans and scary-face folk art instead of making ethical and intellectual progress.
ok. I disagree. Thats off topic. Post another topic about that subject and stop being a troll today.
What are you talking about, being a troll? You're off topic and brushing my commentary aside without even considering it. It's not off topic. Try to be a little more open minded.
read the OP and try to tell me that. Now i'll answer the question now that your pushing me.
A good book to read on this is Noah Harrari's "Sapien"
Before the common era CE or AD there were many religions just as there are now. Religion might be a human construct as dictated in the above book i mentioned. Ants kill other Ants. There is even an Ant species that captures other ants and enslaves them for labor. In some cases the second species of ants will revolt against the captor ant. I know your going to ask me for sources for that ant example but this is off topic so i'm not going to find the source. Send me a private message for a source.
Apes kill other ape tribes and as far as we know they have no religion. Religion has allowed for more efficient wars in terms of murdering massive amounts of people but people have been killing each other far be before the known world empires. The Roman empire for example brought writing to alot of areas so that these areas could record how they murder each other. I'm not a fan of the Roman empire. and on and on and on.
Read the above book or leave me alone on this particular forum topic about the dangers of religion
as i said over and over we are off topic.
I'm not talking solely about "the dangers of religion". I'm talking about inefficiency, and I'm talking about supernatural justification, I'm talking about assumption. That religion is dangerous is tertiary to my other statements, and you've chosen to focus primarily on that aspect of my commentary.
How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties.
just stop.
Quoting whollyrolling
i disagree. The OP is presenting the idea that what we view as a god or supernatural might not be magical nor supernatural at all. I said something to this effect in a previous post on this OP topic. The OP explains that this god might not be a god as classically defined but a creature with extra (read geometric) dimensional characteristics.
Please don't pretend you're adding to a conversation. All you're doing is trying to shut down feedback you don't want to hear and talking about ants and apes and imagining there was ever a time in recorded history, or prior to it, that religion didn't exist in some form.
I'm done here, you can have the thread, it's your personal property.
Nice!
You were the one who brought up religion. I said over and over that had nothing to do with OP. If you want to talk about the dangers of religion (i said this several times) start another Topic and i'll respond if you like. I said this many times. You didn't like my answer.
Until some future point in time yes you are correct this is my forum topic. I'll be waiting possibly forever. lol
The foundation for the claim God exists is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
If you want to debate if God exists, I suggest doing it on the above thread where all the evidence is laid out. This thread is about whether God is material or not.
Quoting S
What exactly has that got to do with whether the universe has ever existed?
It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical.
I certainly am not being a troll.
The conversation is a continuation of several conversations occurring simultaneously. Allusions were made...I responded to them.
Devans knew what he was doing. He is not trolling...nor am I.
There was no "new insight"...there was a very old notion being peddled...and I was not buying.
...and this is "off-topic" also...
...you sound like a sock puppet for Devans.
Are you?
As usual nothing substantive to say :(
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
It is very obvious that there must be a first cause so discussing the attributes of the first cause is relevant.
Just because there is only one type of reality we are familiar with does not mean other types of reality are not possible. Logically whatever created spacetime is not of spacetime so non-material is not as bizarre as it sounds.
Space can't exist without time so it could be that the first cause is 'spaceless' as well as timeless.
No but i am a member of this forum that agrees with some people on some issues and not some issues with other people.
There's a reason for that, but it's not what you think. It has to do with psychology.
Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless?
No, you don't. I'm not sure I do either. But the scenario you present is speculative in its every aspect, to the point where it seems difficult to make any kind of definite statement about anything. Does cause and effect apply to God, for example?
What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? What have we learned if we conclude She is? Do you have, or know of, any evidence to present? Lacking evidence, as we always do when we discuss such things as God, what can we usefully conclude? I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all. We have no justification for doing so...? :chin:
I don't find either paradoxical; the universe is discrete, so not very good examples.
A logical argument can lead to something at odds with common sense? This is true. Relativity and QM are both examples where common sense does not cut it.
God is timeless so he is beyond cause and effect. The only way out of the infinite regress of time stretching back forever is to have a timeless first cause.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Anything material is probably subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it becomes disorganised with time - ages and dies effectively. So there is an argument that a material God would be dead by now. So the argument of material Vs non-material God could be cast as dead Vs alive God.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
We can make some deductions. For example, how did material God get away from the Big Bang? It would of blown him to bits setting that off. Hence non-material God seems more likely.
If you understand how they can be doubted, then you should be able to understand how your argument for the necessity of a first cause can be doubted, unless your psychology prevents you. They all use a similar sort of bad logic.
Once we introduce an unknown quantity, in this case God, it is unclear how our reasoning could or should progress.
Quoting Devans99The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply?
Quoting Devans99
I think the Big Bang is a theory, n'est ce pas? :wink: And if it did happen, and it was God that caused it to happen, perhaps She had a way to avoid its consequences?
There are just too many variables in your speculation to reach conclusions. Every guess we might make could be invalidated by something we failed to define (i.e. assume). You speculate about God, but make assumptions as to which parts of our knowledge and understanding of life, the universe and everything might apply to Her. The usefulness, if any, of any answers we invent is wholly dependent on the accuracy of our groundless and unjustified assumptions concerning Her.
Note: I assert nothing here; there is insufficient information on which to base such assertions. I have no clue how to answer your questions, and I don't think any human can know enough about such matters to offer a useful response to your questions.
Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments.
When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain everything to you, so you didn't really have to learn through tasks and challenges? If you had've done so, how do you think your teachers would've reacted? Is this reflective of your understanding of education? It's your job to sit back and hold to your assumptions, whilst everyone else works to spoon feed you and get you to actually think?
It's like if I give you an inch, you take a mile.
God is the creator of the universe; that is my definition. On the subject of God's sex, God is not the product of bisexual reproduction, so has no sex. It is merely conventional to refer to God as a 'him'.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Your suggestion of divine powers is not logically derived from anything. My suggestion of a non-material nature of God is logically derived. I suggest we can make progress by sticking to logic rather than speculation.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
It is the most fundamental law of science. It transcends even our universe; stuff gets disorganised that is a fact. If you can give me an example of where the 2nd law does not hold?
If God is material and subject to time then the 2nd law says he is dead.
I was asking you to describe the faults in my arguments. I don't see what purpose a discussion of Zeno's arguments serves at this point.
I'm trying to get you to see the purpose of my relating your argument to Zeno's arguments by getting you to use your brain instead of me spoon feeding you the answer.
Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything.
I go through the logical deduction of a first cause here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
I say at the start of the OP that I'm assuming the first cause is God.
I wonder if that distraction technique was deliberate or unconscious. :chin:
Do you, or do you not, believe that a flying arrow is motionless?
Agreed, but saying so does not make it logical. You begin your speculations with an assumption. Very fitting. :wink:
If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?
Looks like the same kind of logic to me.
I believe Zeno's paradoxes go away if you assume spacetime is discrete. So Zeno's paradoxes are actually proof via contradiction that spacetime is discrete. So they stand as valid logic.
Seriously, can you present a logical argument for a universe without a first cause?
Yes.
If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause.
Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
Your argument for the necessity of a first cause uses the same logic.
It doesn't work in the case of Homer and the path, so it doesn't work in the case of the universe and the supposed necessity of a first cause.
What do you have to back up this bald assertion?
Quoting S
So homer cannot walk to the end of the path so by your logic the universe has a first cause?
Quoting S
No it does not. It's a topological argument. First cause is topologically connected (casually connected) to every other cause. Take away the first cause and everything else ceases to exist. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals.
Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario. You're speculating, then cherry-picking the bits of logically-derived stuff (and maybe some illogical stuff too?) that should accompany it. There's nothing wrong with speculation, or with logic for that matter, but if you start with an illogical and unjustified speculation, you shouldn't be surprised if your cogitations result in something ... inconsistent.
If you look back at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
You will see that arguments B, C and E do not use cause and effect as an axiom.
And cause and effect applies. Quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy. They don't create matter.
Logic.
Quoting Devans99
No, lol. Homer can walk to the end of the path, so the universe can be without a first cause. The logic against either conclusion fails.
Quoting Devans99
I've seen you with my own eyes break it down in a similar way. You reason backwards along the same lines. If you were more logical, then you would maintain that Homer can never reach the end of the path, because to reach the end of the path, he must get halfway, and to get halfway, he must get half of halfway, and so on. That's like you reasoning that for the universe to have existed the time that it has done, then it must have existed half of that time, and half of that time, and half of that, and so on. Except that you then just randomly assert without reasonable justification that there must have been a first cause, which you've also called a start.
The difference is that the logic in the case of Homer goes forwards, whereas yours goes backwards.
Quoting S
I never reason like this. Your example has a completely different structure to my argument.
And yet you refer to a "first cause"? :chin:
Stop changing the subject to a different argument resembling Zeno's argument, but with a different conclusion.
Zeno's argument concludes that it is impossible for Homer to get to the end of the path.
Quoting Devans99
You're either lying or deceiving yourself because you can't handle the truth.
You really want the logic to work in the special case of God, even though it doesn't work elsewhere. It's illogical to argue that the universe must have had a start on the basis of that reasoning, yet to reject that reasoning in other contexts. You haven't reasonably demonstrated the necessity of a start. Your reasoning against an infinite regress is just of the sort that Homer has to get halfway, and half of halfway, and so on, only backwards instead of forwards, and then you randomly assert a first cause, which would be a bit like randomly asserting a necessary final destination which simply must be reached.
...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not.
Please tell me where cause and effect does not hold?
Quoting S
My reasoning against an infinite regress is that it has no starting cause, so that the 2nd cause cannot be defined (because it is determined by the first cause), nor the 3rd, and so on. That is a topological argument that the start is causally connected to the rest of the infinite regress. It does not rely on infinitesimals.
It seemingly does hold, and that's the problem you have to contend with. You have proven only capable of reasoning up to a certain point before resorting to your dogma of a first cause.
Quoting Devans99
The logical resemblance is crystal clear. It's just a backwards chain and a forwards chain. You go into detail in a similar way that Zeno's paradoxes do, with a similar logic, and then at an arbitrary point, you randomly assert your dogma of a first cause, like the mirror imagine conceivable dogma of a final destination.
Not long time ago we were thinking of only our solar system because that is what we could see but guessing on all other things that recently were discovered and yet our guess is multiplied by the dimension of what we have found. The more we found the more we will multiply our guess and to simply put it we are nearing the thought of infinity.
The foundation, or "proof" as you call it, of God's existence was not determined by a Catholic propagandist from the 1200's. Today's grade-school children have greater discernment and better sense than this man. To have been venerated by the Catholic church, he would have had to promote that the Pope was the living manifestation of God on Earth and whatever other fundamentalist nonsense was dictated by his indoctrination into theological "philosophy". He would have viewed free thinkers as heathens and anything opposing the Cathollic concept of God as heresy.
But let's address his insane ramblings:
1. The "argument from motion" is a paradox. It is full of sentiment, assumption and speculation. Just as easily as we can speculate that there must be a "first mover" and assign a human personality to it, we can also speculate that "the singularity" was not the first event to have ever occurred in all of reality. Also, if a "first mover" was to exist as was assumed in the "proof", the implication is that the "first mover" began all things and is outside all time and space, eternal. If not time and space, then something must extend infinitely in all directions through all dimensions or some lack thereof, and this is assumed to be the "first mover". Either without time and space, or if time and space were infinite, both of which are impossible, it would be irrational to think that any instance could occur. By this rationale, we don't exist, and neither does the "first mover".
2. First Cause. He argues against himself again here, determining that the "first mover" can't have existed eternally because nothing can exist prior to itself, and nothing exists which hasn't been initiated by something else. To paraphrase this nonsense, he says "I'm confused, therefore God". It's ridiculous to use examples from observable reality to support claims of imaginary things that not only have no foundation in observable reality but effectively contradict it.
3. Necessary Being. Here he hits the nail on the head by iterating what I just pointed out in my previous rant: that this is all absurd. Again, a paradox. "I'm confused, therefore God".
4. Degree. To assume any intrinsic valuation is preposterous. He is now preaching based on abstractions such as nobility and truth that a God, who if human would be a raging sociopath, is responsible for all that is good and decent in humans but not responsible for anything that is corrupt or evil.
5. He presumes, again based on religious belief and in the absence of science, that anything that doesn't appear to be self-aware by human standards is unintelligent and aimless, which was fine in the 1200's, when everyone was a blithering moron, but none of this stuff holds true in modern times.
This argument, and it's no argument at all, is just another confused rant from a place of scientific ignorance and intellectual deficiency. If its writer isn't intellectually deficient, then he's attempting to mislead his reader and pander to authorities his life depends on. The only thing infinite here is the writer's self-contradiction.
Time had a start. Things just don't start themselves (just like it is impossible to create one's self).
Quoting S
If cause and effect holds then there must be a timeless first cause. You are almost agreeing with me.
Quoting S
Honestly you are talking about the Summa Theologica, one of the greatest works of philosophy, and calling it dogma.
I have been trying to be more constructive than this, to illustrate my point, but now I am reduced to: Prove it!
Prove that. Tell me why things cannot start by themselves. How do you know that? What evidence allows you to draw that conclusion?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
Tell me why things cannot start by themselves.
Please tell me how something can start by itself?
I just explained to you how the "proof" you presented argues against itself so no one has to. It's not hard, you just have to read it. It's self-contradictory, confused nonsense. If you place any stock in your argument, then you have to admit that you have no idea what is valid because only the "first mover" knows, another contradiction.
Very funny.
Quoting Devans99
Dogma in a fancy suit is still dogma. Honestly, would you expect any less from the Diogenes of The Philosophy Forum? I am not exactly of the sort to hold back criticism out of a sense of awe and respect. Brutal honesty is the order of the day.
Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim?
Where exactly does he 'assumes' a first mover exists in his proof mean?
Quoting whollyrolling
He is a little confused maybe. But the solution is to make the first cause timeless. Then it all fits perfectly.
Quoting whollyrolling
This is quite a deep argument as I explained in my commentary. I rephrase this argument as:
- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (would have no start), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.
Quoting whollyrolling
I agree. I think he was just paying honour to St Aslim.
Quoting whollyrolling
His argument can be interpreted as the modern argument from design.
Quoting whollyrolling
I note that you have ignored all of my commentary on the 5 ways. You have also ignored my additional arguments for a first cause.
I adopt the axiom: can't get something from nothing.
Then if there is nothing, we cannot have something.
So to create one's self from nothing is impossible.
Quantum foam? :chin:
It isn't a deep argument at all. It's quite shallow. He assumes the "first mover" by writing on behalf of a church and education system that will jail him, possibly torture or kill him, if he doesn't. It's obvious from the flow of the dialogue that he began with the premise that God exists and is writing everything else in an attempt to fortify that position. It's a house of cards with a complimentary 90mph wind.
That is not evidence. Thats not even an argument.
Can you answer the question?
When you claimed that the man's writing was "proof", you resigned that any further commentary is irrelevant. I haven't ignored it, I just didn't address it.
Thats why I thought updating it for the 21st century would be appropriate. Thats why I added an additional 5 arguments to justify the existence of a first cause (which you have ignored).
There are no arguments against a first cause and 10 arguments for a first cause.
...its an axiom...an axiom is not an argument. Its actually the complete absence of argument. An axiom is not evidence either.
So, do you have an actual answer to my question?
Or to create yourself, you'd have to exist temporally before yourself, which is impossible?
We just addressed this, you haven't answered the question. Im beginning to think you cannot. Is that the case?
That's not how I read the QM explanation of the Big Bang. But maybe I misunderstood. That's complicated stuff. But how did the anti-matter mostly disappear, leaving the matter behind? That sounds a lot like matter from nothing and nowhere.
It isn't an argument, it's confusion. I'll repeat that I didn't ignore your additional comments, I disregarded them, there's a difference. You said that the writer "proved" the existence of God, not that you "proved" it.
this was a straw man argument to begin with. he asked you to explain yourself.
I've got stuff to do. I'll pipe down. Sorry. lol. Have a good day.
You are assuming a start.
Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?"
The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always were."
The, stubbornly, seemingly stone-headedly...you insist that the universe cannot be that thing.
It, according to the Book of Devans...had to have a start...which means that it had to have a first cause.
If you would open your mind...you would see that as absolute blather.
Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion.
Whilst by ancient logic, Homer can never reach the end of the path, because before he can get there, he must get halfway there, and before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there, and so on; by his logic, because the event before this one had a cause, and the event before that one had a cause, as did the one before that, and so on and so forth, there simply must be a first cause for no logical reason, but simply because he dogmatically says so under the guise of reason.
You've hit the nail on the head with the "desired conclusion"...which has been the fly in the ointment from the very beginning. Way back, I (and others, including you, I think) have question Devans' motives for all this supposed reasoning.
My conclusion was that he was aiming at a backdoor "proof" of the existence of a god he had in mind...most likely the same god Aquinas aimed for.
The "logic" he proposes to defend his thesis IS NOT logic. It is a path toward where he is determined to go.
His assumption of a start to "whatever" is necessary for him to then demand a first mover or first cause.
Bottom line: He is going to ask us to pick any point on the circle and see where it leads us.
It is impossible to have a creation without a creator.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Always existing is impossible, see:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1
Quoting S
Where does it break down? I do not assume a start; I assume that an infinite regress has no start. You have either not read or not understood my argument.
Quoting S
We already discussed this. By ancient logic, the universe is discrete is the point.
Quoting S
Frank and S have presented pages of waffle not containing any actual criticism of my arguments.
It has not been answered. We only know of one way of existence. Are other forms of existence possible? It is hard to conceive of other forms of existence. Is it hard because they are just not possible? Or is it hard because we are so used to just one form of existence and have never experienced alternatives?
I think the challenge is how do you represent information if it is not with material? All I can think of is energy.
God made spacetime so is not of spacetime. Maybe the photon is a guide - it is timeless and in a sense spaceless (all distances in the direction of travel compress to zero). So maybe God could be pure energy of some form?
The other possibility christian2017 mentioned is that God is material but higher dimensional. Like being non-material, that would allow him to evade the consequences of the Big Bang alive. But if God is material, he maybe dead by now.
The "waffle" is all yours, Devans.
You have decided to build a case that YOUR GOD exists...and have pretended to be arguing something else. Your arguments are all back door nonsense...and I suspect you know it.
When people point out the the flaws in your arguments...you simply dismiss them and then claim that no one has pointed out any flaws.
Nothing wrong with you guessing YOUR GOD exists...nor even that YOU have proved that YOUR GOD must exist...that YOUR GOD of necessity must exist. Nothing wrong with you thinking you have solved a problem that the finest minds that have ever existed on this planet have not been able to solve.
But you should be more truthful with yourself. Lying to yourself never really works.
YOUR GOD or someone else's gods MAY EXIST. No gods...may also be the reality.
We do not know.
I do not know...and you do not know.
Whoosh.
Quoting Devans99
You zoom in on a particular section of the causal chain, follow it along for a while, and then make a giant leap of logic because of your dogmatic faith.
Quoting Devans99
No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start.
Quoting Devans99
That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.
Quoting Devans99
You miss the point.
Quoting Devans99
That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.
I do not 'assume an infinite regress has no start' - if it had a start it would not be infinite.
IMO, all of us philosophers (and all of us scientists too) should repeat this to ourselves at least once a day. :up: :smile:
#ThoughtForTheDay
Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. You haven't demonstrated that an infinite regress is impossible, you've only demonstrated that you're bad at logic and dogmatically attached to the idea of there being a start, so you can smuggle in God through the backdoor.
You don't need a philosophy forum, you need a psychiatrist.
Your point is not coming across. What I do is perfectly logical. If an object has no start then it does not exist. Try to imagine a 3D object with no identifiable start - no such object can exist - it would be incorporeal - it is the exact same thing with time - things without starts cannot exist.
Here is another proof that an infinite regress is impossible:
a. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
b. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
c. But can be a number greater than every other number
d. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1 ?)
e. So is not a number (from c and d)
d. Contradicts [a] which says it is a number
The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any integer.
The rest of your argument fails from there.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, for many "I do not know" is something that can never be said or acknowledged.
Good quote from Feynman...a complicated man, but a guy filled with great quotes.
Whats wrong with that statement?
Infinity is not an integer.
And infinity is not an integer.
Or if you prefer, the first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. If you have no first event, the whole of the rest of the chain must be undefined.
Infinite regresses cannot exist.
All you are saying here is that a finite regress is not an infinite regress.
Yep. You are right.
You cannot set an integer property to a non-integer value.
So why pretend to this long version, when the real version is "Every regress is countable, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress".
Is it because there are infinite regressions?
It's a shame, Devans, that you cannot see this error. You know enough about maths, and are erudite enough, to present curious arguments. But somewhere something went wrong with your education. You are not a fool, but you are a wasted opportunity.
That long proof needs some more work...
Try this. A finite regress will have a finite number of items. An infinite regress will not.
None of which says anything about the "existence" of infinite regressions. And that might well be because of the ambiguity of "existence" in relation to numbers.
After all, does 2 exist?
An infinite regress is like a house without a foundation.
{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018 }
The ... indicates that it has no start.
Notice that this is an additional assumption. It doesn not follow from Quoting Devans99
{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018 }
It has no start, that's what the ... mean. If it had a start it would be a finite regress.
Quoting Devans99
Start at 2018. We know what that is. Then work backwards. Define 2017 as the year before 2018. And 2016 as the year before 2017. A neat recursive definition.
But you cannot start in 2018 - 2018 does not exist until 2017 has happened. 2017 defines 2018. You have to choose the start as the oldest item - and there is no oldest item in an infinite regress.
Because there is no start, none of the years are defined.
why?
{ 2016, 2017, 2018 }
If I somehow could remove the year 2016, would the years 2017 and 2018 still exist? No they would not - they are determined and defined by 2016.
So you have to start with the oldest item. 2018 does not exist; is just vapour without 2017 so you can't start at 2018.
Why?
I sat through 2018. I know what it is.
I can give it a number.
And then I can number every year before that.
Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white?
No it would not - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and so the rest of the regress disappears.
So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist.
And even so, I could number the events backwards:
1. Black goes in hole
2. White hits black
3...
You can't number the events in reverse time order: the cue causes the white to move causes the black to move. There is a causal ordering of events - it's impossible for the black to go in the hole before the white hits it.
Yes I can. I can number them in any order I like.
That's one of the funny things about numbers. When you count a bunch of things, you get the same number regardless of the order.
I can't actually think of an infinite regress example that does not involve time. Not surprising really constructing anything infinite is impossible because you would never finish.
No, that makes no sense. A regress can indeed be infinite.
Quoting Devans99
Working backwards from today's event, it's logically possible to regress infinitely, and you haven't logically demonstrated otherwise.
You can simply assume a first event, but you aren't being logical in doing so.
The only real problem here is that you don't realise that you're being illogical.
That's codswallop. Each year is defined by the previous year, to infinity. There's an infinite number of defined events. They're all defined. Every single one of them.
Because God. That's the honest answer.
At what point does this become something like propaganda or spam?
And what is it made from, I'm also curious about this?
Yes but working from the other direction - there is no start - so none of the years are defined. And that is the correct direction to work from - time does not run backwards - the future does not define the past. An analogy of how it works is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/277817
Can an idea said to be real though? Is it just electrical signals in our brains? I'm not sure an idea has independent existence as in Plato's theory of forms:
"The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Quoting tim wood
I'm not sure if Einstein's stuff applies outside spacetime, but you might be right. The photon is the only thing close to non-material I can think of.
Quoting whollyrolling
I am not sure. Continuing to assume the existence of a timeless God, reality would initially consist of:
1. In the beginning there was God only
or
2. In the beginning there was God and some stuff
The first option, God might create matter from nothing by exchanging it for negative gravitational energy as per the zero energy universe hypothesis. Or maybe pantheism applies in some way (a part of God becomes the universe's matter somehow).
The 2nd option is more in the spirit of the conservation of energy but does not seem as Occam's Razor as the first.
1. God wouldn't be creating something from nothing, God would be creating something from God--because there was only God. In this example, God is material and infinite, but material is finite, so God is also finite.
2. If material existed along with God, then God is separate from material, not omnipresent, both are finite and also infinite and God is arguably non-material.
Let's keep this going and make less sense of something that is already absurd.
Maybe he might have to 'seed' it with something from God, but then the matter could be created from nothing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Pantheism is a hard sell.
Quoting whollyrolling
Everything would be finite - God and the material - why do you say 'both are finite and also infinite'?
BTW I thought of a funny proof that God is not omnipotent: Could God create a copy of himself?
Quoting whollyrolling
Not as absurd of some of the Cosmology theories for the early universe I've seen IMO.
The leading Cosmology theory, Eternal Inflation, has matter created out of nothing as per the Zero Energy Universe theory.
You implied that God and material existed together before there was time or space. Material exists in time and space, which is finite, but if material existed prior to all things, along with God, then both are also infinite.
- Yes. Then material and God could exist in space without time. God would probably be material.
- No. Then God only exists and he is non-material (unless there is something not-God and not-material).
In our universe, space cannot exist without time:
- Does something of zero seconds long exist? No
- A 3D analogy is to have a cube length zero. It does not exist - take away one dimension and the others cease to exist
So God is timeless, space cannot exist without time, suggesting God could be 'spaceless' too?
Quoting whollyrolling
God (and the material if applicable) could exist in a sea of nothingness. Nothing is nothing so it does not count as infinite.
If God existed amid nothingness, then both would be finite because neither would omnipresent. Two things existing independently requires both space and time. You can't just cherry pick natural laws and apply them where they fit your imaginary model of reality while removing them where they don't fit your model. It's inconsistent and pointless.
We have a breakdown of natural laws at the singularity... we have to try to use common sense instead. Something must of been causally before the singularity and it is not of our spacetime. It is timeless (to avoid an infinite regress).
Good point about two things existing independently requiring space. Applies for matter. Not for pure energy though maybe? So God + energy could exist without spacetime? Or God is energy without spacetime?
Quoting whollyrolling
Sorry you feel that way. Obviously feel free to duck out any time.
It is not "our" space-time. It is a set of observable, demonstrable natural laws. Why claim that something supernatural exists and then apply natural laws to it willy nilly in a concoction with a bunch of imaginary absurdity?
My approach is to assume certain common sense rules/axioms constrain govern the situation surrounding the singularity. IE we don't have a guaranteed set of natural laws but certain common sense axioms should still hold:
- can't get something from nothing (excepting the zero energy universe theory)
- 2nd law of thermodynamics
- cause and effect
- No magic allowed
The above transcend the natural laws so can be used to analyse the situation and hopefully get somewhere...
You were talking about an infinite regress. That means backwards, not forwards. You can't work from the other direction. That makes no sense. If you pick an arbitrary point and go forwards, you won't reach any meaningful conclusion. And by that, I mean something like logically relevant, not something like comforting to hear or confirmation bias.
I was just applying logic to a segment of your own reasoning. But you don't like the conclusion.
You also don't like logic, unless you think it is useful for hiding your dogma. You're not hiding it well here, which is a good sign. I'm glad a whole bunch of us are logical enough to see through it. If you're seeking converts, you would fare better with a dumber audience.
A (causes)-> B (causes)-> C
If you take A away, B and C go. A regress needs a first element. An infinite regress does not have a first element.
Two...any question that can be asked in a variation of, "Is it possible that..."...
...is always answered, "YES!"...unless it has been established that what is being asked about is impossible.
(first cause) -> A -> B -> C
If we take away the first cause, then A, B, C don't exist anymore.
For any object, you should be able to trace a causal history back to the first cause; if you can't, then the object does not exist.
That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue.
Just about the only one who does not see that (or, who does not acknowledge that)...
...is you.
That seems to be occasioned by your investment in your thesis.
No: everything IN TIME has a cause. The first cause is outside time so is not subject to causality.
That is the only way that anything can logically exist.
That IS NOT the only way, Devans.
That is the way YOU want to be "the only way"...so that you can reach the logical extension on it. But in order for that to be a valid P1 for the "extension"...you would have to validate it...WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Your problem here is that you are working inexorably toward something that you are pretending you are not working toward.
No, [i]you[/I] are confused. I know how causality works. You definitely don't need to explain it to me in the way that you're doing. The problem is that you don't seem to realise that you're being illogical.
Quoting Devans99
Are you insane? There is no oldest element in an infinite regress. It's an infinite bloody regress.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, that's obvious.
Quoting Devans99
That's pure dogma. You don't really belong here on a philosophy forum. Dogma is unwelcome.
I've explained the giant and obvious fault with your argument about "defined" events. An infinite regress would just have an infinite number of defined events. So you aren't justified at all if you make up some bullshit that I haven't provided any criticism. You're just quite literally deluded.
Demonstrate how anything can exist without a first cause please.
Any system can be thought of as a hierarchy of cause and effect. A pool table is an example. The player breaks off and the balls bump into each other - there is a hierarchy of cause and effect with the player breaking off at the top of the hierarchy and the balls finally at rest at the bottom of the hierarchy.
What you are suggesting is a system with no first cause: this would be equivalent to balls wizzing around the pool table by themselves without the player breaking off.
You are illogical and closed minded. I've explained an infinite regress in enough detail that a child could get it. I give up. :(
Well yes, if you simply lack the capability of understanding what's wrong with your arguments or you're wilfully ignorant, then you definitely should just give up.
YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY.
If YOUR "first cause" can exist...then SOMETHING without a prior cause...can exist.
That thing...you want to be GOD. All the bullshit aside, Devans...you want the "first cause" to be a GOD...one that you have in mind already.
But if that can exist without a prior cause...
...just eliminate the argument of infinite regression.
It doesn't work.
Yes, let me rephrase the question:
Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please.
You can't reasonably rule out an infinite regress.
Therefore, your argument will never work.
Psychologically, you can't accept the fact that your argument will never work.
And repeating a failed argument, no matter how many times, won't magically make it work.
So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining?
C'mon!
AND...if I am not able to demonstrate that...and if Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman were not able to demonstrate that (they may have been able to do so)...
...that would not mean it cannot happen.
It might just mean that HUMANS are not yet able to explain it.
Stop dogmatically proclaiming what must be and what cannot be in the REALITY of existence.
YOU do not know what MUST BE...or WHAT CANNOT BE...in the REALITY.
The logic is that everything in time forms an infinite regress with no start. The only way escape that infinite regress is a timeless first cause. Else there can be nothing. Unless you have another way?
I think you are avoiding answering this question:
Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please.
Fails.
And this has been demonstrated.
You want a repetition because you can't accept that fact. That's pretty insane when you think about it: just repeating things over and over again because of your psychology.
Seek treatment. You can't see because you're willfully blind.
Stop pontificating.
Just stop.
How anything in time can exist without a first cause?
I have answered the question, Devans.
Don't get smartassed with me. You are way outmatched there.
All you have said is what about God? Doesn't he need a cause? To which I have pointed out that God is timeless so no he does not need a cause. So I am still waiting for an answer to the question:
How anything in time can exist without a first cause?
I do not know...
...AND NEITHER DO YOU.
None of us knows.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT NOTHING CAN EXIST IN TIME WITHOUT A FIRST CAUSE.
Can you finally grok that?
- we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause
I would use slightly different wording. I would say:
Understanding the true nature of the REALITY of existence could be as unattainable for humans...as understanding the relationship between The Milky Way Galaxy and M31.
That is not to say there are not ants somewhere in my backyard thinking..."I know the answers"...and trying to get its fellow ants to accept the truth of that.
there is truth to that but this is a forum where we argue and have the potential for atleast honing our own ideas or even learning new ideas. You clearly don't like his ideas on this forum topic. I don't see an end to this debate anytime soon.
There shouldn't be an end. "An end" is not what anyone should be aiming for...or they will be disappointed considering the topics.
I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them.
I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others."
ok
Thank you Frank and I like you too! Appreciate you listening and engaging with my 'ideas'.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's important we keep the discussions going. We will not reach the truth if we do not. It can get a bit heated at times but that seems to me to be healthy.
I do believe the truth is possible to reach even for questions like 'is there a God'. I think you on the other hand have less faith in human ingenuity?
No problemo!
It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods.
And since we do not know for certain there are gods yet...my blind guess would be that we will never know that either.
But I appreciate you sharing your guess.
I think I am more realistic than people who suppose what you suppose.
If a model of infinite reality consists of infinitely larger- and smaller-scale "universes" all subject to time and space in proportion to their position on the infinite scale. What seems like an eternity in this universe is just a brief moment in another, and so on.
I think you can disprove the existence of THE GOD by showing the universe was not created. Or by showing it was not fine-tuned for life. That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those.
Considering the number of extinctions we're aware of, including our own, I'd say it's not fine-tuned for life.
Just keep on moving the imaginary goal posts.
Interesting. I would have thought there would be a 'top level' / base reality time and a top level first cause who is responsible for everything.
Or do you see realities extending to infinity both up and down? If that is the case, there is nothing to anchor reality - nothing equivalent of base reality - so logically there would be nothing (no start or end so how can there be?)
Quoting whollyrolling
Life is very resilient. There are occasional asteroid strikes but they diminish with time and any half developed civilisation can develop counter measures against them. I think it is unrealistic to expect a perfect universe. God had to start with the Big Bang; its not like he could hand craft the whole universe; it is a remarkably habitable place considering what it could of been - most randomly configured universes consist of just particles bouncing off each other endlessly - no adhesion - no complex matter at all - never mind stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for live).
Its anchor is its infinity.
Quoting Devans99
So then God is a bit dumb?
You can't anchor anything at infinity it has no start:
{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 }
No start as indicated by the ...
The start determines all the rest. With no start there is nothing. Take this finite regress example from Pool:
{ 'cue hits white ball', 'white ball hits black', 'black goes in pocket' }
If you remove the first element of the sequence, then the sequence ceases to exist in its entirety. So it is not possible to anchor anything at infinity because its has no start.
Quoting whollyrolling
Not omniscient. Fine-tuned the standard model to support life. Must be pretty smart but not infallible.
I didn't say it was anchored "at infinity", I said its anchor "is its infinity".
Another possibility without "first cause" or "first mover" is a complex algorithm, a simulation. Maybe we're a computer program and there's an argument outside this universe as to whether we "exist" or are "sentient" at all. Or maybe whoever coded the simulation didn't even notice that some of the code started perceiving itself as conscious. We're a blip in a vast loop of calculations, we're accidental artificial intelligence. In this case, we don't exist except as symbolism and require no creator, at least not in the sense that everyone wants so desperately to believe.
I'm not sure what you mean by that? Past eternity is not possible - it can have no substance because it has no start.
Quoting whollyrolling
If we are in a simulation, then there is base reality outside and a base reality time. An infinite regress will not be possible out there either - a first cause in base reality is still required.
It is very probable that God is not aware of our existence in a specific sense. He is aware of the existence of life in a general sense. I was thinking of doing a post on the Simulation Hypothesis some time. With the Simulation Hypothesis, it is interesting to note that we maybe the non-material ones and God is material - the other way around to usual.
I stand by my comment that it is absolutely impossible to ever be certain that there are no gods.
In the model I presented, it's possible that everything is happening presently, no past or future. The movement of time and space is perceived by organisms but never moves overall in an infinite reality.
Or cruel. Or not so powerful. Or a combination. Potentially dumb, cruel and not so powerful.
But none of this matters, because there's no good reason to believe that God exists.
That reasons are reaching an expiry date doesn't mean they were never "good reasons" or didn't serve a purpose.
I didn't say that the reasons were never good reasons, nor did I say that they didn't serve a purpose. That's a different statement that I didn't make. I didn't use past-tense for a reason. You should pay closer attention to my wording in future.
And nor was my meaning of "good reasons" that it serves a purpose. Of course it serves a purpose. It's a crutch for those of feeble mind and character. That's nothing to write home about.
I paid close attention to your comment and to my response. I guess I didn't realize you had the meaning of life in your back pocket, you could have made that known sooner. Us feeble minds have to really have things spelled out for us, perhaps some tutoring, or a cheat sheet for the final exam you've invented.
Sure you did. Anyway, now you know. I never leave the house without 42 on me.
Now I know that I was correct in the first place, but I knew that while it was happening.
Hey. Comments like that are my thing. This town ain't big enough for the both of us.
Quoting whollyrolling
You still wouldn't pass it.
Is God Cruel? Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:
- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.
The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.
God must be powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe. That would need a lot of power and thinking.
Quoting S
Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please
:up: An idea is dependent for its existence on the minds which contain it.
Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause!
The thing is we don't understand this stuff. We're trading theories, none of which can be substantiated. There is no evidence. No proof; no disproof. Just guesswork and wishful thinking. That's life! :smile:
I, with obviously lots of help from Thomas Aquinas, have done that here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one. I would draw a cast iron conclusion from that - there must be a first cause.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
BINGO
YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE.
When are you going to finally grok that?
Your argument disproves ITSELF.
Eh? Showing something can exist without a first cause (which is impossible BTW) is not a prerequisite for showing there is a first cause. You are confusing me.
If you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause.
You are not confused, Devans...you are unwilling to acknowledge that your argument is a nothing-burger.
The question I posed was:
Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please
The first cause does not exist in time so is not subject to causality so does not need a previous cause. IE I'm asking how anything else but the first cause could exist (if the first cause did not).
This is what I read up above:
The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one.
Devans...what your are doing is pontificating...and you are not doing an especially good job of it.
If there is a "first cause"....whatever it is...it EXISTS.
If it had no cause...then it EXISTS without a prior cause.
If you are acknowledging that a thing can EXIST without a cause...
...you have defeated your own argument.
People have dealt with that "in time" nonsense. Get rid of it.
A suggestion, if I may...the Nixon solution. Nixon declared victory in Vietnam...and got out.
Declare victory on this...and move on to something else.
Properly done...you can claim to have solved all the problems of the world.
It is very simple:
- things in time all need a cause
- timeless things (IE the first cause) don't need a cause
Then everything adds up; everything has a cause except the one thing that does not need a cause and there are no (impossible) infinite regresses. It's the only way things can be - I do not believe a valid counter argument is possible - and none have been forthcoming - so maybe I should consider the matter settled and move onto other things.
Pontification.
Ya gotta get away from it.
What is your justification for this?
- Quantum fluctuations are temporary only - they respect the conservation of energy - so they do not cause persistent matter to appear. So they should have minimal impact on the macroscopic world.
- Quantum fluctuations can anyway be thought of as obeying causality in the sense they are caused by excitations of a field, which is caused by 'empty' space, which was caused by the Big Bang.
I'd argue as far as origins of the universe type questions are concerned, these are macroscopic not microscopic questions - the Big Bang involved at least 10^53 kg of matter - the answer is not some poxy quantum fluctuation IMO.
So I think cause an effect applying to things in time is a sound assumption for reasoning about origins of the universe. Cause an effect does not apply to the first cause - it is timeless and beyond causality.
The universe cannot have existed for ever and I cannot see any other way for the universe to get started apart from a timeless first cause?
And from this, you are happy to assume that every effect has a cause? Reasonable, for sure, but not philosophically rigorous.
Quoting Devans99
You can't see another way, so you leap to the conclusion that you're correct? Again: reasonable, for sure, but not philosophically rigorous.
It's not possible to know everything deductively. Even with deduction, we rely on axioms that are themselves inductive. Science often uses the five-nines (99.999% certainty of a finding) as a standard for judging inductive knowledge for example.
There is only one threshold value for certainty: 100% or probability 1. Not 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% and not probability 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. That's what distinguishes certainty from being (say) 'fairly sure'.
Quoting Devans99
:up:
Quoting Devans99
My conclusion from what you have said here is that there is no certainty, in practice, in real life. Yours seems to be that we must assume that some arbitrarily-close approach to truth is actually true. Is that correct?
Very little certainty. Most of everyday life is based on induction. We cross the road because we were not run down the last time. We eat healthy food because it might statistically help. We do X because someone said Y and we trust them. Etc... Everyone should strictly speaking be agnostic... there is no certainty.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
That is what I think we do, consciously and subconsciously, in everyday decision making. I think thats what we've had to do to make progress. Both evolution and the theory of gravity remain theories only, yet we (nearly) all assume that they hold. This is the strength of the scientific method: the combination of empirical evidence with theoretical support can increases our confidence in a finding greatly.
There are logical arguments for a first cause, including some that do not use cause and effect. So the theoretical side is covered. I believe that the Big Bang is empirical evidence to support the logical arguments for a first cause. It is sort of hard to derive much more than that in the way of direct empirical evidence for a first cause.
One counter argument I can think of against a first cause is two or more simultaneous equal-first causes. The fact that time is a singleton seems to rule it out; two separate entities could not conspire to create time (unless they were working together in which case that would count as a single entity).
? You were there, to record and measure it? That's what empirical evidence is, yes?