The cosmological argument revisted.

[Link]

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), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

 

[icehorse]

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), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

Can you provide an example? Are you talking about something like the big bang, or... ?

thanks

 

[ChristineM]

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), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

Consider the cosmos as infinite. What first cause is required to cause infinity?

 

[Link]

Consider the cosmos as infinite. What first cause is required to cause infinity?

Let's take time out of the equation. Even if there is infinite effects in a chain, for example, something pushing down, and the other pushing that down, and another thing pushing that down, in a infinite way going up or down, you would still require a cause that doesn't get pushed for it to happen. Putting time and giving infinite chain in the past, doesn't change the inductive reasoning, that sees there needs to be an uncaused cause.

 

[ChristineM]

Let's take time out of the equation. Even if there is infinite effects in a chain, for example, something pushing down, and the other pushing that down, and another thing pushing that down, in a infinite way going up or down, you would still require a cause that doesn't get pushed for it to happen. Putting time and giving infinite chain in the past, doesn't change the inductive reasoning, that sees there needs to be an uncaused cause.

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

 

[Link]

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

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.

 

[McBell]

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

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?

 

[Link]

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?

It's a legitimate argument and that's because the cosmological arguments argues for why the cosmos needs a cause and why God doesn't.

 

[McBell]

It's a legitimate argument and that's because the cosmological arguments argues for why the cosmos needs a cause and why God doesn't.

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

 

[Link]

To show the inductive reasoning:

Each commander/effect/whatever in time, is making a statement "I can't get started unless someone previous to me get's me going", now if you make a thousand of them, still all of them stating that none of them can get started.

Now even in the case of an infinite chain, they are all making the statement, and as there is no previous to all of them in case of the atheistic viewpoint, none of them can get started. In the theistic viewpoint, uncaused Creator can create effects and bring time into being.

 

[Link]

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

You have to make an exception. There has to be one cause that is not an effect.

 

[Altfish]

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), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

Even if I agree with "Everything needs a cause" which I'm not sure it does.
Why does your god/creator get a pass and doesn't need a cause?

 

[McBell]

You have to make an exception. There has to be one cause that is not an effect.

Then your argument fails before it even gets started.

 

[Link]

Even if I agree with "Everything needs a cause" which I'm not sure it does.
Why does your god/creator get a pass and doesn't need a cause?

If it was an effect, it would require a cause. It's uncaused, but things in time like the universe, all are in movement, and declare they need a cause previous to their state. The same is not true about God.

 

[Altfish]

If it was an effect, it would require a cause. It's uncaused, but things in time like the universe, all are in movement, and declare they need a cause previous to their state. The same is not true about God.

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

 

[sayak83]

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.

There is no first one in an infinite sequence. Your argument fails because and infinite sequence is FUNDAMENTALLY different from a finite chain. You cannot get to infinite by making the finite larger and larger. The properties and nature of the infinite numbers and infinite sets is entirely distinct from the nature and properties of finite sets. Basic number and set theory here.

 

[Link]

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.

 

[Link]

There is no first one in an infinite sequence. Your argument fails because and infinite sequence is FUNDAMENTALLY different from a finite chain. You cannot get to infinite by making the finite larger and larger. The properties and nature of the infinite numbers and infinite sets is entirely distinct from the nature and properties of finite sets. Basic number and set theory here.

I am keeping in mind set theory, which to me, proves definitely the universe is created.

 

[PureX]

Consider the cosmos as infinite. What first cause is required to cause infinity?

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.

 

[sayak83]

I am keeping in mind set theory, which to me, proves definitely the universe is created.

That you need to show.