Skeleton form of the Argument from First Cause

[Nathan45]

Here's the basic "First Cause" argument, removed of any references to "God":

Premise 1) Everything and every occurrence either has a cause or is uncaused. That is to say, everything either exists for a reason or it doesn't exist for any reason.

Premise 2) Any cause itself is also either a "thing" or an "occurence" and is subject to premise 1.

Premise 3) (not really necessary but i'll put it in) If there is any environment where spontaneous things can arise randomly without cause, this environment is also subject to premise 1

Premise 4) If any infinite regresses exist, the regress itself is subject to premise 1.

Conclusion: Everything that exists must either have an infinite chain of caused causes behind it (infinite regress) or at some point in the chain there must be an uncaused cause, something which exists or occurred for no reason. Any infinite regress must also have a cause or be uncaused, therefore an "uncaused cause" must exist.

...

The above is a very weak form of the argument, but the strongest i know how to present without running into any real snags.

Typically the "(first) uncaused cause" is said to be "God", however i'll simply say it is "supernatural" because it fundamentally exists or occurred for no reason at all.

I also don't know how you could possibly learn anything further about the "first uncaused cause", if it exists, to determine whether it is anything like "God".

But in any case, does anyone see any problems with the first cause argument as stated above?

 

[The Nihilist]

Causality is a pretty foggy concept, or at least it has been since Hume. This makes the argument from causality questionable.

 

[Nathan45]

Causality is a pretty foggy concept, or at least it has been since Hume. This makes the argument from causality questionable.

I don't know what you're talking about. Which premise are you attacking, exactly?

 

[The Nihilist]

The first one. Are you at all familiar with Hume?

 

[Nathan45]

The first one.

Everything and every occurrence either has a cause or is uncaused.

I don't understand how you can attack this argument as it's basically true by definition, unless you can explain to me how something can be neither caused nor uncaused, what's the third option?

Are you at all familiar with Hume?

No.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm drunk, otherwise I'd explain it a bit. In the article linked below, it's under the heading of causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

 

[Nathan45]

I'm drunk, otherwise I'd explain it a bit.

IMO, we should continue this conversation when you're hung over, then.

In the article linked below, it's under the heading of causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

I still don't see your point

 

[MaxP]

Here's how Aquinas said it ( I also removed all of 6 words tacked on to the end regarding God, to make you happy ):

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.

I also don't know how you could possibly learn anything further about the "first uncaused cause", if it exists, to determine whether it is anything like "God".

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html
Particularly "Prima Pars."

I also see a problem. Premise 3 violates Premise 1 by the very nature that things can arise without cause. While the environment may be subject, the spontaneity of the occurrences violates premise 1, unless you can trace their causation to the environment.

 

[Nathan45]

I also see a problem. Premise 3 violates Premise 1 by the very nature that things can arise without cause. While the environment may be subject, the spontaneity of the occurrences violates premise 1, unless you can trace their causation to the environment.

why do i need to trace their causation to the environment? if spontaneous occurrences have no cause, then they are uncaused, which is perfectly consistent with premise 1.

 

[Nathan45]

From Aquinus:

whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. [...] Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.

that's a contradiction. I agree with the conclusion, but "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another" violates the conclusion.

Simply, there must be at least one thing which was not put into motion by anything. In addition, all "motion" must ultimately trace back to something which exists ( or "has motion" ) for no reason.

One interesting addition: If we define the universe as "everything" and include the "prime mover" in the the category "everything", then we must arrive at the conclusion that the universe exists for no reason.

 

[MaxP]

From Aquinus:

that's a contradiction. I agree with the conclusion, but "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another" violates the conclusion.

No, Aquinas also states that this Prime or First Mover is Itself immobile, not in motion, although later in his Summa.

Aquinas most likely explains it better...
Here, he explains the First Mover's immutability(He uses God, but don't take the term as loaded, simply a descriptive word for the concept he is describing):

From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable. Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved. Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.

So, It has no potentiality, no motion.

Simply, there must be at least one thing which was not put into motion by anything. In addition, all "motion" must ultimately trace back to something which exists ( or "has motion" ) for no reason.

One interesting addition: If we define the universe as "everything" and include the "prime mover" in the the category "everything", then we must arrive at the conclusion that the universe exists for no reason.

Well, that's the question: why does God exist?
We can only vaguely begin to comprehend it, but basically God(or a First Mover) would exist necessarily, because of the universe.

 

[MaxP]

why do i need to trace their causation to the environment? if spontaneous occurrences have no cause, then they are uncaused, which is perfectly consistent with premise 1.

Sorry, I'm used to reading that everything has a cause, I assumed that was what premise 1 was.

 

[The Nihilist]

IMO, we should continue this conversation when you're hung over, then.



I still don't see your point

Nathan, the argument is complicated. I will definitely get back to you, but I'm going to need some time to get my thoughts together. I'd do it now, but I have a date later, and my apartment is a wreck.

 

[Nathan45]

Sorry, I'm used to reading that everything has a cause, I assumed that was what premise 1 was.

premises:
1) everything that exists has a cause
2) God is uncaused

conclusion: God does not exist.

^That premise doesn't work.


But you and aquinus seem to be having fun with the word "motion":

premises:
1) everything in motion was put into motion by something else
2) A prime mover was not put into motion by something else

conclusion: A prime mover is not in motion.

... appears to work, but how can something not in motion put something else into motion?

 

[MaxP]

premises:
1) everything that exists has a cause
2) God is uncaused

conclusion: God does not exist.

^That premise doesn't work.

Well, more:
1) Everything in motion is moved by another
2) Everything evident is in motion

You could replaced "motion" with "caused."

So, you could say:
1) Everything that exists(as we know it) is caused.
2) Everything that is caused is caused by another.

the only possible conclusions are either a Being which does not exist as we know it, and causes the rest of things to exist in the way we know it, or infinite regress, which itself makes little sense.

But you and aquinus seem to be having fun with the word "motion":

premises:
1) everything in motion was put into motion by something else
2) A prime mover was not put into motion by something else

conclusion: A prime mover is not in motion.

... appears to work, but how can something not in motion put something else into motion?

You are not put in motion by the kind of motion you use to put another in motion. When gravity causes a rock to fall, gravity is not affected. Gravity does not move.

 

[tcampen]

Aquinas was not, understandably, familiar with quantum physics. This area of physics deals with particles coming into existence without any direct cause. It deals with particles whose position inherently cannot be predicted. Where a degree of randomness really exists.

 

[-Vincent-]

When gravity causes a rock to fall, gravity is not affected. Gravity does not move.

When gravity causes a rock to fall, gravity is affected in that the shape of the gravitational field is changed...

 

[Blackmarch]

Here's the basic "First Cause" argument, removed of any references to "God":

Premise 1) Everything and every occurrence either has a cause or is uncaused. That is to say, everything either exists for a reason or it doesn't exist for any reason.

Premise 2) Any cause itself is also either a "thing" or an "occurence" and is subject to premise 1.

Premise 3) (not really necessary but i'll put it in) If there is any environment where spontaneous things can arise randomly without cause, this environment is also subject to premise 1

Premise 4) If any infinite regresses exist, the regress itself is subject to premise 1.

Conclusion: Everything that exists must either have an infinite chain of caused causes behind it (infinite regress) or at some point in the chain there must be an uncaused cause, something which exists or occurred for no reason. Any infinite regress must also have a cause or be uncaused, therefore an "uncaused cause" must exist.

...

The above is a very weak form of the argument, but the strongest i know how to present without running into any real snags.

Typically the "(first) uncaused cause" is said to be "God", however i'll simply say it is "supernatural" because it fundamentally exists or occurred for no reason at all.

I also don't know how you could possibly learn anything further about the "first uncaused cause", if it exists, to determine whether it is anything like "God".

But in any case, does anyone see any problems with the first cause argument as stated above?

um what does uncaused mean?
Sounds like time in reverse.

as for a first cause I do not believe it to be within our reach to find it at this time.
While God might be a candidate, I would doubt so.

 

[RichardT]

Typically the "(first) uncaused cause" is said to be "God", however i'll simply say it is "supernatural" because it fundamentally exists or occurred for no reason at all.

Why would you call it "supernatural"? The supernatural doesn't exist. If you call the first "uncaused cause" God then your definition of God fits nicely with Atheists.

 

[tcampen]

Why would you call it "supernatural"? The supernatural doesn't exist. If you call the first "uncaused cause" God then your definition of God fits nicely with Atheists.

It depends on how you define God. If god is a term used for a principle of the cosmos that necessarily results in quantum fluctuations and an infinite bubbling of universes, then ok. But if you want to say God is a person, infinite being that is has no material, energy, spacial, or temporal qualities, but can still think and create a universe, then you're talking supernatural stuff here.