The endless chain of causes

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 138
Topic's author
#91
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not mean to insult your intelligence by proposing that you actually believe what you just said.


Your claim is ridiculous. SOMETHING EXISTS, AND THIS SOMETHING IS A CHAIN OF CAUSES -- this is a basic observation known to all generations. 

There are only three options to explain such a chain of causes: God, something god-like, or no cause. 

Why require empirical evidence that there is an explanation of reality when the existence of reality is objectively true?

It is like saying that without empirical evidence, you wouldn't believe that you yourself existed. Your very existence debunks your argument.
Topic's author
#92
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
 I agree being caused by nothing would be nonsense. 
Fine you agree. 


God, or something god-like, is not caused by "nothing" -- they aren't caused at all, they are INDEPENDENT on any cause.
#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
  • Nonexistent things
  • Caused things
  • Uncaused things
The first group MUST exist, by philosophical necesity.
Must NOT exist I think you mean but yes I get you n. Not everything would appear to exist so some things by logical necessity don't.
The second group we observe
Agreed
The third group MUST exist if the second group is observed
Ok then (some) things can exist without a cause and we do not know what things these might be. Maybe proto-universes or preuniverses require no cause.
Topic's author
#94
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok then (some) things can exist without a cause and we do not know what things these might be.
Exactly. This is the starting point for meaningful discussion between all worldviews.


#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Well I'm not certain I agree I'm just granting it for arguments sake to see if it even matters to confirming your argument but it does not. Your proposed first mover is still unfalsifiable and therefore dismissable.
Topic's author
#96
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Your proposed first mover is still unfalsifiable and therefore dismissable.

Well, look at it this way:

  1. Something exists because it has been caused
  2. Something exists independently of any external cause
If we connect those two premises, we explain reality:
  • Something independent always existed (by nature of being independent)
  • Before anything was caused, nothing caused could exist
  • Thus, the cause for the first caused thing could NOT be caused itself
  • Therefore, the cause for the first caused thing must itself be uncaused
  • Conclusion: An uncaused thing caused the first caused thing, and started the chain of causes

This solves the paradox that infinite causes are logically absurd. It also explains why dependent things exist. Dependent things are dependent upon other dependent things, but this line of dependence is not infinite (which would be absurd), but it is grounded in something independent. (or in other words, the tower of causality has a foundation, it isn't infinite, which means the tower of causality makes sense rather than being absurd.). This is the only valid explanation so far for WHY caused things exist. And remember, there is only a single alternative: "the first caused thing had no cause" -- a theory so abstract and weird and non-intuitive that accepting it would be intellectual suicide. To require empirical evidence for an unchallenged theory is NOT being "critical", it is to purposefully reject the truth or at least the closest to the truth we can come.

Therefore, it falls upon the opposition to provide a better explanation for reality. 




#97
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Something exists because (we observe it)

It has been caused (unfalsifiable claim)

Something exists independently of any external cause. If we grant this then it is not logically incoherent to believe that whatever form it took the component elements from which the observable universe is formed exist independently of any cause. Unless you can explain why one proposition could exist eternally (some god(s)) and the other cannot have existed eternally (the component elements from which the observable universe is formed) you are by definition committing a special pleading fallacy.

Again I do not favor one argument over another I am just evaluating how valid and sound your argument can be said to be.


Topic's author
#98
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I am just evaluating how valid and sound your argument can be said to be.
You are a truly honest discussion partner.



I think you are no longer evaluation the argument, but the implications -- because the very existence of an independent being starting causality is the conclusion of the argument, not its premise. After accepting a first cause exists, we have different candidates for what an independent being might be. Why favour one over another? Why say God over energy, or the other way around? Indeed, this is where the interesting part starts.



First of all, can it be OUR universe? The answer seems to be no. An infinitely inflating universe is not possible, as every piece of energy would be infinitely far apart if that was true -- but energy is close together as observed today. Can it be a multiverse? Can energy come from a multiverse? Well, the same problem applies, even greater this time. How can infinite production of new universe make sense if energy "cannot be created or destroyed"? If energy is eternal, it cannot be produced either by quantum laws nor a multiverse. Therefore, if energy is not infinitely spread out, energy is not eternal. And energy also cannot "create" a universe, as energy is actually a wave on the fabric of spacetime, according to Quantum Field theory. Thus, energy cannot be independent, as they relly on the existence of the universe. Universes and multiverses cannot be independent either, as infinite expansion is nonsensical.

If quantum laws can create energy, then energy can indeed be created and destroyed, which makes it NOT independent, but dependent on the process that created them.
#99
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
The mathematics we currently use break down before a time somewhat after the beginning of the event colloquially as the big bang. This said we really have no way of evaluating any before if before is even an applicable concept in this context. Assuming that stuff existing means there us some eternal stuff, which is not by any means demonstrated, doesn't tell us anything about eternal stuff.

So far this is all speculation and special pleading.

I need you to understand that if you cannot demonstrate a proposition you cannot put that proposition forward as a cause for anything. We need to be sure it isn't in category one before we go any further as we have agreed that anything in category one cannot by definition be a cause of anything.

#100
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
If quantum laws can create energy, then energy can indeed be created and destroyed, which makes it NOT independent, but dependent on the process that created them.
This is I am afraid a nonstarter since the quantum laws do not describe anything being created but merely events for which no cause is known. Perhaps they are causeless and perhaps they have an as yet unobserved cause. This does not in any way suggest any supernatural cause. In fact any time humans have made supernatural claims that were later through expanding understanding able to be investigated it has been supernatural exactly 0.0% of the time.
Topic's author
#101
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The Big Bang, a soup of energy that expanded and became our universe.

Where did this initial state come from? Here are the alternatives:

1. The universe existed BEFORE Big Bang
    1. Variants include a multiverse, a cyclic universe, and all possible scenarios of pre-universe universes
    2. The meaning of this alternative is simply that causality and time existed before Big Bang, in another form
    3. In other words, this theory suggests BB has a caused cause: a previous iteration of energy and time


2. The universe did NOT exist before Big Bang
    1. This option asserts that God, or something god-like, created the universe
    2. This option means that time and causality starts at Big Bang
    3. This options means that BB has an UNCAUSED cause


These are the only alternatives if we accept that "nothing" is not a valid cause.


I don't understand why you keep claiming that these options must be demonstrated. I have explained why any other alternative is logically impossible. Please raise a logical objection that makes the conclusion not self-evident before you demand an empirical demonstration.
#102
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
The universe existed BEFORE Big Bang
The universe did not exist before the big bang although the cosmos may have and there is no reason to think if this is the case that we could know or even describe what form it took or how ot behaved or how pr why the big bang happened.
The universe did NOT exist before Big Bang
If this is the case it does not necessitate that the universe has any cause and it also does not necessitate that there was only one cause.
#103
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,321
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
Either the chain of causes is eternal, or it isn't
You ignored my point that there doesn’t have to be one chain.

My point was that if you believe something can exist (or “start”) without a cause then you do not accept causality as a law, and if you do not accept it as a law then God is no longer required.

As stated earlier, eternal universes have no bearing in reality, the idea is impossible even in principle.

We have now two options:
Finite universe with a cause
Finite universe without a cause
You have no basis to make this claim. The concept of an infinite universe is hardly any worse than the concept of an uncaused cause. The simple fact is we don’t know since both of these options contradict our understanding of the only realm of reality we have access to and yet we apparently can’t think of an alternative.
#104
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What if my claim is that we do not know how it happened and that speculation is therefore all we are capable of?

As long as you admit all you have is speculation you should have no issue then with progressing with logical premises. Based on our "speculations" we move forward with what makes more sense, and what fits with reality. And inanimate forces creating intelligent universes is the first step in realizing that it's simply nonsensical. The rest is easy.
Keeping in mind our premises are only labeled speculation because we can't prove them to one another, not because one of them is not true.

What if I further claim that speculation absent evidence is a poor pathway to truth.

Is your speculation absent of evidence? I then feel even more pity for you. Maybe find a new pathway to truth?
Evidence defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" means we aren't the one's absent of evidence.

This may lean we don't have and cannot find an answer. I am sorry if this is an uncomfortable thought for you

In the grand scheme of philosophical frameworks there is nothing uncomfortable to me, that is not a factor....this is not a game of what makes me feel good, I'm not that simple minded and easy. If you want to have any intelligent discourse with me you will have to ditch the preconceived ideas right from the start. After all these years you should know better.

but really humans don't know much in the grand scheme of things and I would find a way to square myself with 'I don't know' if I were you.

If you don't know it's best you just admit it and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't have that problem as of yet in this discussion (I'll let you know when I do). We have access to all the information and facts as they appear straight from the Creator, nothing is hidden it's all there to put all the pieces together. Reality hides nothing for those who have no perverted motives or agendas for handling truth as it exists. Some have only a few pieces, some have many but don't know how to arrange them, some have none and won't look anyways, some feel fine not knowing, some want knowledge for advantages but the truth always evades them, some can't handle the truth ect ect...however the facts are always available and not possessing them has nothing to do with them not being known. 
The question becomes will you recognize the truth when it is laid before you, and what will you then do with it?

Claiming humans don't know anything and can never know reality is a silly cop out. More so it's an insult to all the intelligent people who have diligently laid all the pieces of the puzzle before you anytime you are ready to put them together. Every time I read this nonsense I just have to shake my head and realize that people view truth as something intangible. But why? truth is simplistic, easy to digest, easily obtained. 

#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
That amounts to bald assertions and arguments from special knowledge and after all these years you should know that these kinds of arguments are cnot compelling to me.
#106
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
This is a logical contradiction. A static reality would have no movement, no progression. Beginning a process by definition requires progression.

I don't make logical contradictions, I've already dealt with all the angles involved. A static reality begins with nothing but awareness, observation of Itself and there is no progression of events because AGAIN, a progression of events is only relevant to creation where there is a beginning of something and an ending of that event. God is not an event and there is no beginning or ending of that Reality....Processes begin out of a static reality where there was no prior set of events. Awareness does not require a progression of events because they don't exist (yet), it's simply the state of being aware, once something is put into motion or effect then there is the motion of that event and the progression thereof....and where then time becomes something we can measure.
Beginning a process through awareness requires a progression but awareness in and of itself is the cause of that process, I never said that a process does not require a progression! but a process comes out of awareness where there was no prior progression of events outside of awareness itself. Awareness is what precedes a process, but nothing precedes awareness.

I would love to move forward in this line of reasoning but I want to make sure you get it. Honestly I'm tired of setting things before folks and there being reading comprehension issues or simply someone not catching what I'm saying. I don't just put things out there without first making sure all the angles are logically secure. Responding to theweakeredge at this point is worthless, he made several errors I'm not willing to put in the time to correct. If you catch on quicker I'd love to expand on this but I'm not getting my hopes up. 



#107
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Suit yourself. Remain ignorant that's not my fault. 
#108
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
In as much as believing is different than knowing I'm not really convinced that we are not both ignorant in this respect. 
Topic's author
#109
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You ignored my point that there doesn’t have to be one chain.
You are making things unnecesarilly complicated.

Of course, there might be multiple multiverses of multidimensional universes connected by quantum strings - but that doesn't affect the argument that any chain of events must have a cause. In other words, the argument that a multiverse needs a cause is the same argument that a universe needs a cause. Yes, OUR chain of events might be caused by another chain of events, but that chain causing our chain would still require its own cause. Essentially, your objection doesn't even affect the argument, you are simply trying to make things so complicated we can't talk about it.


something can exist without a cause
This is not my argument.

To claim that all things have a cause is nonsensical -- how do you explain the laws of logic, do they have a cause? 

I claim that anything that STARTS to exist has a cause. This is not the same as saying ALL things have a cause.



if you do not accept it as a law then God is no longer required.
Nothing can START without a cause. The idea that things start without a cause is inherently bs, as nothing uncaused has never been observed to START. Think about it, if things can start without a cause then why doesn't this happen all the time? If matter caused itself, why doesn't it pop into existence everywhere? Because it is limited, the matter we see today is caused by previous instances of energy, this means that there is a loop: energy causes matter which causes energy which causes matter which causes energy which causes...................................infinity. 

But when does this loop stop? Did matter (or energy) cause itself? Can things pop into existence to then start causing other things to exist? No, that's nonsensical.

Consider this problem:
  • Energy is independent (aka eternal), and no more or less can exist of it from one instance to another
  • Our universe is expanding
  • Thus, if energy is eternal, it should be infinite distance between some energy and some other energy.
    • Alternatively, one would need to say that energy existed eternally, but our universe did not, which is nonsensical as energy is just a WAVE in the universe-field, according to quantum field theory.


In conclusion, if we accept that something independent started the chain of causality, we are NOT undermining the law of causality, neither are we allowing energy to be uncaused, and neither do we make God unnecessary. There are still only two candidate causes for reality: "God, or something similar", and "no cause". So either you claim that nothing can cause something, or you accept that God or something similar exists, or you deny the laws of logic.



Topic's author
#110
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
If this is the case it does not necessitate that the universe has any cause and it also does not necessitate that there was only one cause.
If the universe did not exist before BB, it has by definition a START. And anything with a start has a cause.

The causes is either:
  1. God, or something similar
  2. Something else with a cause
    1. This thing requires a cause -- and does not solve the problem

#111
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
If the universe did not exist before BB
We actually DO NOT KNOW what the state of affairs was before the big Bang or even if before is a nonsense term.
Topic's author
#112
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
We have already covered all options. All possible uncertainties are already embedded inside the options presented. YES, we do not know what the state of the universe was before Big Bang. HOWEVER, all possible states of reality are taken into account, and fit into these categories: caused or uncaused.

Tell me, what do you actually mean by these "we don't know" arguments? That logic is not valid before Big Bang?
#113
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Tell me, what do you actually mean by these "we don't know" arguments? 
Our math breaks down. We have no useful tools for evaluating or understanding the "time before the big bang" or to even say that there was time before that. Logic cannot help us understand and we have NO WAY of evaluating the truth value of ANY statement concerning it.
Topic's author
#114
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
we have NO WAY of evaluating the truth value of ANY statement concerning it.
You say that since MATHEMATICS don't apply, logic doesn't apply. That is non-sequiter.
#115
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,321
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
You are making things unnecesarilly complicated.
No, you’re not paying attention. I’m not talking about the universe or multiverses, I’m talking about anything that exists. If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law, therefore there could be infinite “Gods”, which would seem to undercut what you’re calling God.

To claim that all things have a cause is nonsensical -- how do you explain the laws of logic, do they have a cause?
The laws of logic do not exist. They are descriptions of the limitations of things that exist.

There are still only two candidate causes for reality
This is the fundamental flaw. Reality encompasses all that exists, so when you claim God exists you are simply saying that reality includes God. The idea of something causing reality amounts to arguing that existence was caused by something that doesn’t exist.

If you disagree then define reality.
#116
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Benjamin
Logic is based on our understanding of HOW THINGS HAVE ALWAYS WORKED. There is no reason to believe that things worked the same way before the big bang and so logic isnot necessarily a reliable manner of evaluation. I know it seems counter intuitive but the cosmos is under no obligation to make sense to us.
Topic's author
#117
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 95
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
The idea of something causing reality amounts to arguing that existence was caused by something that doesn’t exist.
I might have been unclear. By "reality", I meant the material reality. 

Exist: to have real being whether material or immaterial

 I claim that since all material things have a cause, that the material reality is caused by an immaterial one: God, or something god-like.




The laws of logic do not exist. They are descriptions of the limitations of things that exist.
They ARE the limitations. 


There could be infinite “Gods”
Actually, there could be one infinite God or your proposal, or anything in between those two extremes. The point is, Gods defining characteristic necessarily belongs to SOMETHING. Because if this trait, independency, doesn't exist, then the existence of something dependent doesn't make any sense. The only way to claim that something independent doesn't exist is to claim that NOTHING exists.


If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law
Causality: the idea that anything that starts to exist has a cause

I don't disregard causality by claiming God has no cause. God has no beginning, and the law of causality doesn't require him to have a cause.

I think your objection is that God, or something god-like, isn't proven to be immaterial. I agree, I haven't proven that energy cannot be this "independent" thing. But we DO know that something independent exists.
#118
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
You seem to have a hard time grasping this - 

IF our mathematics break down THEN we have no way of gathering information
THEREFORE we have no data nor precedent to draw from to make deduction or induction, ERGO, logic breaks down. 

Furthermore, the concept of an uncaused "being" has not only no substantiation, but it is logically incoherent. To suggest that there is an uncaused causer would suggest that there is causality in the first place - we have literally no reason to think that a "god" set off the big bang, well no more than we do for a pencil or (insert any noun) created the universe. You see - it is impossible for there to be a "mind" without a body - before the big bang there was nowhere for a body to be - as a mind necessarily requires a physical manifestation, it is literally impossible for a god to exist. 

So, if you accept materialism, there is no possible way for there to be a god, because that god would necessarily have to "exist" before "existing" was possible, even if you don't accept materialism it is still impossible for something to exist whenever there is something that does not apply to logic - physics simply don't work there - and the laws we have in the post-big bang universe, do not apply there. We have no reason to accept that a god exists at all - and we have reason to think that this god doesn't exist in this universe either. Reason being?

IF an immaterial being was to make something, THEN they could definitionally not create material things without being material itself - the only being that had the potential to cause the big bang has to be immaterial. 
#119
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF our mathematics break down THEN we have no way of gathering information
THEREFORE we have no data nor precedent to draw from to make deduction or induction, ERGO, logic breaks down. 
Well stated 
#120
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Double_R
If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law, therefore there could be infinite “Gods”, which would seem to undercut what you’re calling God.
Well stated