First cause

[Shad]

Well, Aquinas was still using Aristotelian metaphysics. So that can be dismissed without much further comment. More modern treatments include Craig's comments, which seem to have very deep misunderstandings of what Cantor said about the infinite and the nature of causality.

You and I dismissing the idea is far different from convincing others or those on RF recycling arguments they heard or know little of. That is why I often label RF posts using these arguments as copy/pasting as users rarely address issues I bring up. Toss in a frequent philosophy forums which have users that can debate points themselves unlike posts in RF as per the above copy.paste point

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you.

Based on my experience, most people can not comprehend the idea of infinity.
For some it actually hurts their brain.

You know. I never really thought about that, people being uncomfortable with infinity. It is always expressed "because we humans have 'limited' capacity for knowledge of the eternal" type of thing. Almost as if giving themselves an excuse to not face the actual fact without a question for an answer. Not everything needs answers.

 

[Thief]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

the void

go back to Genesis

ALL was darkness

God was God of the Dark
BEFORE He created light

kinda hard to 'see' what you are doing with the lights off

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To avoid the impractical position of an infinite chain of causes.

We don't want an impractical universe. That's why we created quantum physics.

 

[izzy88]

Math studies patterns and what *can* exist. What the logical boundaries are.

I see no reason why an infinite regress in time cannot *actually* exist.

I've been reading this thread and trying to decide the best place to jump in, because everyone posting here has demonstrated a misunderstanding about what a First Cause is actually referring to, and why it's argued to be necessary.

Firstly, the First Cause argument - more technically referred to as the Argument From Contingency - has absolutely nothing to do with time. People see the words 'first' and 'cause' and automatically think time is involved. Not so.

What this argument is about is the contingency of things in the universe, meaning their dependence on things outside of themselves for their existence. This isn't like a "I wouldn't exist if my parents hadn't made me" kind of dependence, but a "the very matter that composes my body isn't maintaining its own existence right now in this moment." Every single particle in my body could, possibly, at any given moment, not exist; none of them exist necessarily. They also depend on things outside of themselves in order to exist in this moment, things like the material conditions of the universe, to the laws that govern reality.

But do these conditions and laws exist necessarily? Could they be conceived of as not existing? While that would mean that the universe as we know it wouldn't exist either, it's reasonable to say that we can still conceive of such a scenario, yes? The fundamental laws of reality need to exist for everything else to exist, but do they need to exist from an objective standpoint? Of course not.

What this means is that everything in the universe is contingent; nothing exists necessarily, and so everything depends on something outside of itself for its existence - even the laws that govern reality.

Because of this, there must necessarily be some foundational reality which exists necessarily - whose essence is existence. To use an analogy, think of a chandelier being held up by a chain connected to a ceiling. The chandelier is dependent on the first chain link to hold it up, and that chain link is dependent on the one above it, and so on and so forth. Yet if we just had an infinite number of chain links, not connected to a ceiling, the chandelier couldn't be suspended in the air as it is, right? In order for the chandelier to be hanging in the air (to exist) it is dependent on there being a ceiling (a non-contingent thing) which isn't being held up by anything else and simply is up in the air (obviously a ceiling is actually held up by the frame of the house, but hopefully you get the analogy).

None of this is to say that it's a flawless argument which cannot possibly be argued against, but I thought I'd try to help clarify what the argument is actually saying, because nobody I've seen here has understood it. And here's the actual argument itself:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

 

[izzy88]

Well, Aquinas was still using Aristotelian metaphysics. So that can be dismissed without much further comment.

The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking.

Aristotle, literally one of the greatest minds in history, is not only being flippantly dismissed by some random nobody on an internet forum, but said random nobody is also claiming that they don't even need to give any reason whatever for dismissing him.

Think about what you're actually doing. I mean really think about it. It's either an incredible level of ignorance, or egotism to the point of insanity.

 

[sealchan]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

There can't be a first cause because that cause would have existed without anything to "effect" or any context to impact. The whole notion is based on a "domino" metaphor of activities occurring in a serial order. The metaphor fails as it is extended to the whole of creation.

A better metaphor is the biological life cycle...each step of transformation occurs in a sort of free fall between order and chaos (random circumstance). There is just enough order to understand what is happening but always the possibility of the unexpected to enter the scene.

What happens as one approaches the whole of the unfolding of cause and effect in our Universe is that we see that events become gradually "murky"...mixed with equal parts order and chaos and less subject to easy metaphors based on familiar experience. In other words things get strange and the sense that there is anything normal or universal gets deconstructed.

The first cause, therefore, becomes, rather, the "first obscurity" which die to its strangeness becomes distasteful and uninteresting.

 

[izzy88]

There can't be a first cause because that cause would have existed without anything to "effect" or any context to impact. The whole notion is based on a "domino" metaphor of activities occurring in a serial order. The metaphor fails as it is extended to the whole of creation.

That is all incorrect.

I explained it in this post:

I've been reading this thread and trying to decide the best place to jump in, because everyone posting here has demonstrated a misunderstanding about what a First Cause is actually referring to, and why it's argued to be necessary.

Firstly, the First Cause argument - more technically referred to as the Argument From Contingency - has absolutely nothing to do with time. People see the words 'first' and 'cause' and automatically think time is involved. Not so.

What this argument is about is the contingency of things in the universe, meaning their dependence on things outside of themselves for their existence. This isn't like a "I wouldn't exist if my parents hadn't made me" kind of dependence, but a "the very matter that composes my body isn't maintaining its own existence right now in this moment." Every single particle in my body could, possibly, at any given moment, not exist; none of them exist necessarily. They also depend on things outside of themselves in order to exist in this moment, things like the material conditions of the universe, to the laws that govern reality.

But do these conditions and laws exist necessarily? Could they be conceived of as not existing? While that would mean that the universe as we know it wouldn't exist either, it's reasonable to say that we can still conceive of such a scenario, yes? The fundamental laws of reality need to exist for everything else to exist, but do they need to exist from an objective standpoint? Of course not.

What this means is that everything in the universe is contingent; nothing exists necessarily, and so everything depends on something outside of itself for its existence - even the laws that govern reality.

Because of this, there must necessarily be some foundational reality which exists necessarily - whose essence is existence. To use an analogy, think of a chandelier being held up by a chain connected to a ceiling. The chandelier is dependent on the first chain link to hold it up, and that chain link is dependent on the one above it, and so on and so forth. Yet if we just had an infinite number of chain links, not connected to a ceiling, the chandelier couldn't be suspended in the air as it is, right? In order for the chandelier to be hanging in the air (to exist) it is dependent on there being a ceiling (a non-contingent thing) which isn't being held up by anything else and simply is up in the air (obviously a ceiling is actually held up by the frame of the house, but hopefully you get the analogy).

None of this is to say that it's a flawless argument which cannot possibly be argued against, but I thought I'd try to help clarify what the argument is actually saying, because nobody I've seen here has understood it. And here's the actual argument itself:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

If all things were, are, and will be "created" into being by cause and effect, why must there be a first cause?

Actually from the science perspective there need not be a 'first' cause, because nothing is 'first' in an eternal existence of a Quantum World. From the Theistic approach the Baha'i Faith believes that ALL of existence is eternal with God, theresfore no beginning.

 

[PruePhillip]

In fact, if *all* things must be caused by something else, either there is 'cyclic causality' or there is an infinite regress of causes.

A 'first' cause would be something that is NOT caused, violating the hypothesis.

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is sometimes answered
with this proposition that the universe endlessly recycles, without a beginning. This is
unproven in science and begs the question, "You haven't answered."

 

[viole]

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is sometimes answered
with this proposition that the universe endlessly recycles, without a beginning. This is
unproven in science and begs the question, "You haven't answered."

Is God something?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

I've been reading this thread and trying to decide the best place to jump in, because everyone posting here has demonstrated a misunderstanding about what a First Cause is actually referring to, and why it's argued to be necessary.

Firstly, the First Cause argument - more technically referred to as the Argument From Contingency - has absolutely nothing to do with time. People see the words 'first' and 'cause' and automatically think time is involved. Not so.

What this argument is about is the contingency of things in the universe, meaning their dependence on things outside of themselves for their existence. This isn't like a "I wouldn't exist if my parents hadn't made me" kind of dependence, but a "the very matter that composes my body isn't maintaining its own existence right now in this moment." Every single particle in my body could, possibly, at any given moment, not exist; none of them exist necessarily. They also depend on things outside of themselves in order to exist in this moment, things like the material conditions of the universe, to the laws that govern reality.

But do these conditions and laws exist necessarily? Could they be conceived of as not existing? While that would mean that the universe as we know it wouldn't exist either, it's reasonable to say that we can still conceive of such a scenario, yes? The fundamental laws of reality need to exist for everything else to exist, but do they need to exist from an objective standpoint? Of course not.

Even more Aristotelian metaphysics. *Sigh*

I think the whole concept of 'necessary existence' versus 'contingent existence' is poorly formed. Something is dependent on its existence only because physical laws exist to allow for one thing to form another. Without that, there is no contingency. And *that* means that contingency does, in fact, involve time: causality is time based. So is contingency.

When you say 'can they be conceived as not existing', you are addressing the limitations of logic or imagination. Logic alone cannot prove something exists. It can only use the assumption that if something exists and obeys certain natural laws, then something else will exist.

In some ways, I think you are saying the same thing. There is NOTHING that *has* to exist. There is no *reason* that there is something as opposed to nothing.

What this means is that everything in the universe is contingent; nothing exists necessarily, and so everything depends on something outside of itself for its existence - even the laws that govern reality.

I would point out that you are conflating two different notions here: the existence being dependent on the existence of something else (contingency) and whether it is possible to imagine that thing to not exist. I can easily imagine the universe as it exists does not exist, but it also seems to me that it is not contingent on the existence of anything outside of it.

In fact, I'll go further. It is possible to imagine that *nothing* exists. So that version of 'contingency' means everything is contingent.

Because of this, there must necessarily be some foundational reality which exists necessarily - whose essence is existence.

How does that follow? Why is it impossible for *everything* to be contingent on something else? Also, most things are contingent on many other things, not a single one.

To use an analogy, think of a chandelier being held up by a chain connected to a ceiling. The chandelier is dependent on the first chain link to hold it up, and that chain link is dependent on the one above it, and so on and so forth. Yet if we just had an infinite number of chain links, not connected to a ceiling, the chandelier couldn't be suspended in the air as it is, right?

I don't see why not. Each link supports the lower links, so all the links are supported, right? You seem to think the whole set of links needs a separate support. And that does not follow.

In order for the chandelier to be hanging in the air (to exist) it is dependent on there being a ceiling (a non-contingent thing) which isn't being held up by anything else and simply is up in the air (obviously a ceiling is actually held up by the frame of the house, but hopefully you get the analogy).

I think this is a fundamental mistake in your reasoning here. The reason the chandelier is held up is NOT only the existence of the link, but its properties and the physical laws that it obeys (not to mention things like the laws of gravity). In fact, in the absence of gravity the chandelier would simply float.

Which means the analogy to the chandelier is poor: causal contingency is not analogous to the action of gravity.

None of this is to say that it's a flawless argument which cannot possibly be argued against, but I thought I'd try to help clarify what the argument is actually saying, because nobody I've seen here has understood it. And here's the actual argument itself:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

Prove it.

1. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

Well, definitional.

1. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

I disagree. At least, I see no reason why it couldn't.

1. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Even if this argument's hypotheses were correct, this does not show what is required. The biggest weakness is that even if it shows the existence of a non-contingent item, it is very far from showing the uniqueness of that item. Why are there not many 'first causes'?

And, in fact, in the quantum world, it appears that thing do, in fact, appear and disappear without any pre-conditions. Would these not be first causes under your definition?

But, addressing the argument itself. Again, you conflate the two notions of contingency: that of being dependent on its existence on something else and that of not being able to imagine the non-existence.

For example, and as another example, the laws of physics can be imagined to be different or not exist. But I don't see any sensible way in which they are dependent on the existence of anything else. he universe as a whole is another example. Time is yet another.

And, if you are arguing in the Aristotelian mode, all mathematical objects are non-contingent. Are they first causes in this definition?

 

[Polymath257]

The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking.

Aristotle, literally one of the greatest minds in history, is not only being flippantly dismissed by some random nobody on an internet forum, but said random nobody is also claiming that they don't even need to give any reason whatever for dismissing him.

Think about what you're actually doing. I mean really think about it. It's either an incredible level of ignorance, or egotism to the point of insanity.

I am well aware of Aristotle's innovative ideas and his influence on western thought. But that is precisely why it is necessary to point out he was wrong in almost every conclusion he reached (except a couple in biology). But this is to be expected for an early investigator. When you are the first in an area, it is highly unlikely that your ideas won't be overthrown, especially after 2300 years.

It is well known that Aristotelian physics is wrong. It was overthrown in the 16th and 17th centuries and is dead. In almost every particular, from his idea that motion requires a force, to the idea of a sublunar realm, to the concept of natural motions, he was simply wrong. He had a LOT of problems with notions relating to uniform motion, let alone accelerated motion.

But he wasn't just wrong in his physics, he was also wrong in his metaphysics. In particular, his analysis of causality was deeply flawed as well as his division of existence into 'contingent versus necessary'. As shown by developments in physics over the last century, these classical ideas simply don't work in the real world. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are mostly paradoxes of attempting to keep outmoded ideas in the face of new data.

So, no, I am NOT flippantly dismissing Aristotle. I am dismissing his ideas because the last 2300 years have shown he was wrong. He was a great thinker and got many areas started. But that does not mean he was correct in anything.

I find it breathtaking to imagine that Aristotle cannot be dismissed simply because he was the first (or nearly the first) deep thinker. He was wrong in almost everything he said. That does not deny his innovation or importance in the history of thought.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is God something?

Ciao

- viole

We can't answer for anything outside even the empty void of space time.
Whatever there is, it doesn't obey the physical laws.

 

[izzy88]

Even more Aristotelian metaphysics. *Sigh*

I think the whole concept of 'necessary existence' versus 'contingent existence' is poorly formed. Something is dependent on its existence only because physical laws exist to allow for one thing to form another. Without that, there is no contingency. And *that* means that contingency does, in fact, involve time: causality is time based. So is contingency.

When you say 'can they be conceived as not existing', you are addressing the limitations of logic or imagination. Logic alone cannot prove something exists. It can only use the assumption that if something exists and obeys certain natural laws, then something else will exist.

In some ways, I think you are saying the same thing. There is NOTHING that *has* to exist. There is no *reason* that there is something as opposed to nothing.



I would point out that you are conflating two different notions here: the existence being dependent on the existence of something else (contingency) and whether it is possible to imagine that thing to not exist. I can easily imagine the universe as it exists does not exist, but it also seems to me that it is not contingent on the existence of anything outside of it.

In fact, I'll go further. It is possible to imagine that *nothing* exists. So that version of 'contingency' means everything is contingent.


How does that follow? Why is it impossible for *everything* to be contingent on something else? Also, most things are contingent on many other things, not a single one.


I don't see why not. Each link supports the lower links, so all the links are supported, right? You seem to think the whole set of links needs a separate support. And that does not follow.



I think this is a fundamental mistake in your reasoning here. The reason the chandelier is held up is NOT only the existence of the link, but its properties and the physical laws that it obeys (not to mention things like the laws of gravity). In fact, in the absence of gravity the chandelier would simply float.

Which means the analogy to the chandelier is poor: causal contingency is not analogous to the action of gravity.

Prove it.
Well, definitional.
I disagree. At least, I see no reason why it couldn't.

Even if this argument's hypotheses were correct, this does not show what is required. The biggest weakness is that even if it shows the existence of a non-contingent item, it is very far from showing the uniqueness of that item. Why are there not many 'first causes'?

And, in fact, in the quantum world, it appears that thing do, in fact, appear and disappear without any pre-conditions. Would these not be first causes under your definition?

But, addressing the argument itself. Again, you conflate the two notions of contingency: that of being dependent on its existence on something else and that of not being able to imagine the non-existence.

For example, and as another example, the laws of physics can be imagined to be different or not exist. But I don't see any sensible way in which they are dependent on the existence of anything else. he universe as a whole is another example. Time is yet another.

And, if you are arguing in the Aristotelian mode, all mathematical objects are non-contingent. Are they first causes in this definition?

You have an amazing level of arrogance for someone who has no idea what you're talking about.

Because you responded to pretty much each point, it's clear you did actually read it all, but you still failed to grasp the fundamentals of your original misunderstanding, which is why it continued into your attempted refutation. This is likely at least partially my own fault (and exactly why I never became a professor; I'm just not great at explaining things, in general).

Anyway, your attitude has killed any desire I had to be of help in correcting your misconceptions about this.

I am well aware of Aristotle's innovative ideas and his influence on western thought. But that is precisely why it is necessary to point out he was wrong in almost every conclusion he reached (except a couple in biology). But this is to be expected for an early investigator. When you are the first in an area, it is highly unlikely that your ideas won't be overthrown, especially after 2300 years.

It is well known that Aristotelian physics is wrong. It was overthrown in the 16th and 17th centuries and is dead. In almost every particular, from his idea that motion requires a force, to the idea of a sublunar realm, to the concept of natural motions, he was simply wrong. He had a LOT of problems with notions relating to uniform motion, let alone accelerated motion.

But he wasn't just wrong in his physics, he was also wrong in his metaphysics. In particular, his analysis of causality was deeply flawed as well as his division of existence into 'contingent versus necessary'. As shown by developments in physics over the last century, these classical ideas simply don't work in the real world. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are mostly paradoxes of attempting to keep outmoded ideas in the face of new data.

So, no, I am NOT flippantly dismissing Aristotle. I am dismissing his ideas because the last 2300 years have shown he was wrong. He was a great thinker and got many areas started. But that does not mean he was correct in anything.

I find it breathtaking to imagine that Aristotle cannot be dismissed simply because he was the first (or nearly the first) deep thinker. He was wrong in almost everything he said. That does not deny his innovation or importance in the history of thought.

And this is just more of the same.

At least I got my answer as to whether your flippant dismissal of Aristotle was ignorance or egotism (it was a heaping portion of both).

Take care.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is sometimes answered
with this proposition that the universe endlessly recycles, without a beginning. This is
unproven in science and begs the question, "You haven't answered."

The possibility of a cyclic universe is simply a possibility based on the present knowledge of science, and not begging the question.

 

[izzy88]

a possibility based on the present knowledge of science

....and with several unsupported assumptions and a good helping of wishful thinking.

 

[viole]

We can't answer for anything outside even the empty void of space time.
Whatever there is, it doesn't obey the physical laws.

So, your question should be: why are there things that obey physical laws, instead of no thing that obeys physical laws?

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MNoBody]

all aboard the good ship -causality
a mobius class ship

 

[Fool]

In fact, if *all* things must be caused by something else, either there is 'cyclic causality' or there is an infinite regress of causes.

A 'first' cause would be something that is NOT caused, violating the hypothesis.

so are you saying there is either a circular cause or a linear cause?


If there is a circular cause don't you already have a linear cause?

but with a linear cause you don't necessarily have a circular?