Exactly. Which is why a first cause is a cause which has no prior cause for its own existence. The universe cannot always have existed co-temporally a...
The problem here is you are looking at the numbers only, yet including emotional implicit outcomes that would likely not align with the numbers. For e...
It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its a...
Do you understand that if there is something which caused the Big Bang, then the Big Bang is not a first cause? A first cause is not an opinion or bel...
Your point has largely been, "Maybe there's a prior cause to the first cause." This is what I'm addressing. I have not seen a concrete example that de...
I have not been intending to use reason as a cause, but as an explanation. Of why "X" is a cause. I think the problem some people have been having is ...
I will clarify with more care. I'm simply using this as an example, not trying to say such a thing actually exists. My point is that there is no way t...
A first cause does not have to instantiate motion. A first cause may be already in motion, with again, no prior cause as to what it is in motion. As a...
I believe causation is the factual reality of some entity X which explains why some entity Y exists. Thus a first cause would be a Y with no other X e...
I know where the information can be found. You have not demonstrated any specific type of other cause, only vague, "maybes". So far the main point is ...
Almost certainly. As I've noted before its incredibly difficult to prove something is a first cause. And it would need to be proven. Not believed, not...
This is a good point. I appreciate the specific point out to where cause is ambiguous. I have always considered constituents as causes depending on ho...
Always nice to see an attempt at epistemology. I would say in general your world 1 and world 2 viewpoints seem sound as an introduction. I don't know ...
Yes, we agree on this again. To give a less abstract example, imagine that a photon appeared without prior cause somewhere in the universe, while a sm...
Everyone here knows the right thing is to say you would if those people were equal in worth to the world as yourself. It would be another matter if it...
If I stated, "The first cause by energy", then of course that leads it open to there being another specific cause like "The first cause by matter". Bu...
I don't see it being particularly fraught myself, but I'll define it if need be. Take any set of existence. What caused that set of existence is anyth...
Hi Chet! Awesome that you decided to post! Its always a vulnerable position to put yourself out there, but glad you did. :) I have a few starter quest...
Yes, my description of a first cause has nothing to do with our observations or measurements. It is the reality of whether there was something prior w...
I wouldn't call it deception. I'm not trying to trick anyone, I'm trying to have a conversation to see if what I'm claiming holds upon scrutiny. The w...
Much appreciated Banno. He is correct. Which is fine, but how does that apply to the argument? I cover both finite and infinite chains. We don't have ...
You are misunderstanding my claim here. I'm defining what a first cause must be. Its just like defining what the term "first" means. I can give exampl...
Great points Bob, this is where we can get into the discussion in earnest. Yes, an excellent question. One thing to remember is that the human being t...
That still does not explain a first cause. An atom decaying into a refrigerator would have a prior cause of the atom's existence. Its really just the ...
I really wish you would stop demeaning the post without anything but a deriding opinion. I have answered your questions and critiques, so I would like...
Oh, I never claimed that there was no reason for a first cause. The reason for a first cause is that, "It exists without prior cause." Meaning that th...
I've written my own viewpoints on knowledge that I've developed over years here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/...
Correct. Ah, you've made an unknowing contradiction here. That which is productive is something that is useful and good. If you go into the garage and...
Hey Metaphysician, I'll address your second post as well. I see it bleeds into my other response to you, so I'll try to address anything that was left...
Oh, let me clarify the way I define of knowledge. Knowledge is not truth to me. It is a tool we use to best assess what is most likely to be true with...
Then this I need to be clearer. The idea is that a first cause is not separate from the chain but is part of the chain, or the chain itself. A first c...
I largely agree. The logic points out that there must be a first cause, but it does not make any claim as to what that first cause might be. There are...
This is an interesting idea, but interesting ideas are not proof. With the idea of first causes, anyone can propose an equally competitive idea. For e...
No, it is the first cause. Its entire existence is uncaused by anything prior. That's exactly what this is. If the universe is infinitely regressive, ...
I'm not intending at all to debate the soul, so lets assume one exists. If free will comes from the soul, then free will is not a first cause. Is the ...
I don't see any separation between realms, or a loss of causal connectivity. You observe, your mind stores the observation and definition as memory in...
We don't get to create the chain. We are not first causes. We can extend the chain into different branches. but we are not existences that formed with...
No. What causes the description? The interaction between a human and the link. The chain exists despite our ability or inability to define it. If a tr...
Yes, the first cause is its existence. What is the reason why this infinitely regressive chain of causality exists? There is no prior cause for it, it...
I meant that there are no existing proven discoveries of anything that is a first cause. No one to my mind, has ever conclusively proven that any "x" ...
Oh, I see what you're asking for now. Let me give you your answer and then a bit more. First, I'm not a physicist which is why I linked you the materi...
My apologies if I missed an earlier reply! Here's a quick summary of how radioactivity works. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-...
One paradigm shift is likely The Gettier Problem. Knowledge was generally understood to be justified true belief. Then Gettier came in and scuttled al...
Yes, a first cause is that which is not caused by something else. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is logically necessary. No, its just a log...
A random event is not about our current ability to measure to predict, it is about a hard logical limitation to predict. A first cause is something se...
Hi Metaphysician, good to see you again. :) I think there was a misunderstanding. A first cause is uncaused. Meaning its existence is a purely random ...
AmadeusD, especially since Christoffer posted, I see no point in continuing to comment on this issue. He has answered my accusation of a straw man arg...
But what is my definition of a first cause? Its that which has no prior cause for its existence. There is nothing beyond reality. Reality is what is. ...
Comments