The cosmological argument revisted.

[Link]

That you need to show.

I did or from your viewpoint at least tried.

 

[sayak83]

Another way to think of it, is mathematically, infinity divided by two remains infinity. There degrees of infinity according to set theory, for example, infinite more real numbers then integers.

If you divide the universe in 3 in an infinite chain, 2 of them will have a previous cause, but then you make an except for the first of the three? The question is why, inductively, it is wrong, it requires a cause. So now I showed a way to reduce the problem and simplify it. Infinite chain of effects can be split, and they would all require previous cause.

This simplifies the problem and shows definitely it requires a first uncaused cause.

I did not understand what you said here.

 

[Link]

I did not understand what you said here.

Then try to or ask where it seems unclear.

 

[sayak83]

Another way to think of it, is mathematically, infinity divided by two remains infinity. There degrees of infinity according to set theory, for example, infinite more real numbers then integers.

If you divide the universe in 3 in an infinite chain, 2 of them will have a previous cause, but then you make an except for the first of the three? The question is why, inductively, it is wrong, it requires a cause. So now I showed a way to reduce the problem and simplify it. Infinite chain of effects can be split, and they would all require previous cause.

This simplifies the problem and shows definitely it requires a first uncaused cause.

If you cut a set of integers into 3. The middle sequence will be finite having both a largest and smallest number. The first sequence will not have a smallest number but will have a largest number and the last sequence will have a smallest number but no largest number. Further the smallest number of the 2nd set is generated from the largest number if the 1st set.
Similarly if you cut time into 3, the middle chain will have a first time and last time, the first sequence will not have a first time but will have a last time, and the last one will have a first time but no last time. The earliest time in the 2nd set is causally generated from the last time of the 1st set. Same property.

Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers - Wikipedia.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's talk about this. Assume there are billion commanders, and each commander can't command unless the one before him commands it. In this case, they can't command anything, because the first one will have no one before it. Now going back in the infinite chain of commanders, it remains the same, no matter how far back you go, they can't get started because there needs to be one who just starts it without a commander telling him to.

It's inductive reasoning and again, doesn't suffer the problems atheist philosophers bring up, from applying parts to the whole. It's a misapplication of a fallacy when people conclude it mostly on inductive reasoning.

Methinks you need to get a handle on infinity.. no beginning, no end, therefore no cause is required.


And why the insult to atheists? Ive told you before and i am sure others must have too, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism has nothing to say on causality.

 

[osgart]

The universe itself could be an uncaused cause and merely be ever-changing in it's form. Maybe it's cyclical, and somehow perpetually ever-changing.

 

[ChristineM]

But so far as we can tell, it is not infinite. And even if it were, there is another even greater conundrum: that existence is the expression of order being imposed on an otherwise chaotic expression of energy. Even infinity doesn't negate that. And it begs several very big questions as to the source and purpose of that order.

As far as we can tell this universe is flat, ie, potential infinite as measured to 5 decimal places. Yes it did have a beginning but from what did it begin

Meaning was the not confined to this universe but the whole general mishmash.

i would say what order, this universe and all it contains is chaotic from the smallest quantum particles to superclusters and galactic filaments.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, not for an infinite cosmos, no initial cause is required. .

Can you prove it since you made a positive claim? Based on what evidence have you made that positive claim?

 

[ChristineM]

Why do I get the impression this thread is going to boil down to every cause needs a cause until you get to god, then the 'rule' every cause needs a cause will get tossed out the window and god will suddenly not need a cause?

That god magic has all the answers

 

[firedragon]

Why do I get the impression this thread is going to boil down to every cause needs a cause until you get to god, then the 'rule' every cause needs a cause will get tossed out the window and god will suddenly not need a cause?

So you believe that a contingent cause alone is the cause? Can you provide your explanation for that?

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, this is apologetics at its worse. You can't move the goalposts for your god.

So you believe that the cause was contingent? Is this the atheists standpoint or your personal standpoint?

 

[osgart]

If everything that we know of had an ultimate beginning then we would need an uncaused cause outside of it to generate it.

 

[osgart]

Something perpetual must exist in order for anything to exist at all.

 

[leroy]

The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), .

No educated philosopher will ever make such a claim. That objection is only found on youtube and forums............and its based on a strawman

The argument (premise) is not

Everything in the universe has a cause……therefore the universe had a cause

The argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause………….so it doesn’t matter if a thing* is in the universe or not, if it begun to exist then it most have a cause.

 

[leroy]

Nope, not for an infinite cosmos, no initial cause is required. .

But you would still need and uncaused entity.

Imagine a heavy ball resting in a soft couch causing a depression (a curvature)

You would naturally conclude that the depression is being caused by the ball (the ball is the cause of the depression)

Now imagine that the couch / the ball and the depression have always been there (from infinite past)……………….would that change your conclusion that the ball is the cause of the depression?....( I assume that the answer is no)…………

The point is that even if you assume an infinite universe you would still need an uncaused entity. (a first mover)

 

[ChristineM]

The argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause………….so it doesn’t matter if a thing* is in the universe or not, if it begun to exist then it most have a cause.

How can you apply the fundimental principles of this universe to outside this universe?

Those principles formed after the bb based on the properties of this universe.

If other universes exist you cannot guarantee they will have the same properties as this universe. Andrei Linde and others have hypothesised around 10^10^16 universes that humans could comprehend. And many many times more beyond human comprehension, one number i heard was 10^10^58

And of course infinity cannot have a cause

 

[leroy]

No, it is not a "legitimate" argument.
The second you make an exception to the rule, you shoot your rule in the foot.

Yes, there has to be an exception , that is the point that theist have made for centuries.

There has to be an uncaused cause

 

[ChristineM]

But you would still need and uncaused entity.

Imagine a heavy ball resting in a soft couch causing a depression (a curvature)

You would naturally conclude that the depression is being caused by the ball (the ball is the cause of the depression)

Now imagine that the couch / the ball and the depression have always been there (from infinite past)……………….would that change your conclusion that the ball is the cause of the depression?....( I assume that the answer is no)…………

The point is that even if you assume an infinite universe you would still need an uncaused entity. (a first mover)

No you wouldn't, i am talking infinity, not some rubber sheet and finite ball.

The fact is you don't seem to understand what infinity is

 

[leroy]

How can you apply the fundimental principles of this universe to outside this universe?

Those principles formed after the bb based on the properties of this universe.

If other universes exist you cannot guarantee they will have the same properties as this universe. Andrei Linde and others have hypothesised around 10^10^16 universes that humans could comprehend. And many many times more beyond human comprehension, one number i heard was 10^10^58

And of course infinity cannot have a cause

How can you apply the fundimental principles of this universe to outside this universe?

Because it’s a metaphysical truth that would apply in all possible universes………to say that something came from nothing is simply absurd.

Things like planets with negative mass, or a solar system with i+2 planets would also be absurd in all possible universes (with i I mean the square root of -1)

And of course infinity cannot have a cause

An infinite universe is also absurd and inconsistent with the evidence…………………but it would solve the first cause argument anyway.

 

[leroy]

No you wouldn't, i am talking infinity, not some rubber sheet and finite ball.

The fact is you don't seem to understand what infinity is

The point that I made is that the ball would still be the cause of the curvature even if there has always been a “ball+couch+curvature”…………..adding infinity doesn’t change th fact that the curvature has a cause.

If this is not your argument , then I apologize for my straw man, and I invite you to elaborate your actual argument, so that I don’t misrepresent it again