Nuh-uh, it's metaphysical, which doesn't mean at all that it's spiritual. It has applications to physical systems, just as it does to mathematical or purely abstract ones, like symbolic logic where there's no physical referent.
You're just not making any sense to me.
Causality is a phenomena of physics. I don't see how it can be said to not be.
Pretty much anything can be expressed in abstract terms and symbolics. But nearly all of that is meaningless, unless it is applied to physical reality.
As I said, "A causes B" has no meaning until it is identified what A and B are.
Also, "A causes B", even without identifying what A and B are, still refers to a
sequences of events. B happens
after A. No matter how abstract you wish to look at it, it sill implies an arrow of time flowing in a specific direction. That direction being "forward".
No, mathematics and other abstractions like symbolic logic don't imply sequences of events; they're timeless, which again doesn't mean they're spiritual or anything like that.
The word "causes" IS a temporal word. "A" happens and
as a result of that event, "B" happens.
After A.
There is no way around that.
No matter how abstract you wish to express it. It will still imply an arrow of time, moving forward.
And let us not forget that in the context of this thread here, we ARE talking about physical causation.
And a timeless entity can definitely be before any set whose members work within time, just like zero exists prior to the number one.
What is a "timeless entity"?
To speak about something being logically prior (rather than chronologically prior) means that when it causes something (here the universe), its causing is simultaneous with the effect. Appealing to cause and effect as limited to a sequence of events is begging the question here.
It's not begging any question. It is
what the word means.
"prior" = "before".
Before = a reference to a
time frame.
You're making about as much sense here as if someone would say "
logically north of the north pole". It makes no sense.
Also, feel free to share a real-world example of something that is "logically" prior as opposed to "chronologically".
An infinite timeline moves forward only if you assume you're in the present moment, P, when there's negative infinity behind you and infinity in front of you.
I don't get the "only" part. An infinite timeline moves forward, just like any other timeline. There just is no beginning or end to it.
However, this doesn't seem to be a subject worthy of pondering, since we know for a fact that time isn't infinite in the past, since it is an intrinsic property of the universe and we know that the space-time continuum had a beginning at T = 0. And there is no logical "before" that.
That's what needs to be proven with an actual infinite (infinite regress) existing within time. An infinite set of causes never allows for moment P; again, it's like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit.
I disagree. A timeline that moves eternaly forward in an infinite series of causes and effects, will have causes and effects taking place. An infinite amount of them, even.
I don't see why the "current moment" couldn't be one of them.
But, as I said, I think it's a moot point anyway, since we know time doesn't stretch infinitly into the past.
Nobody is saying this proves a deity, only that it opens up the door metaphysically for one. It logically proves a first cause.
Sure. But that first cause took place IN the universe, at T = 0.
It's essentially the first event of the universe. The universe itself can not be an effect, at least not in the sense that we understand causes and effects, since that would require for an event to take place "before" time exists.
Perhaps it's just a terminology problem, because concepts where time doesn't actually exist are as-good-as impossible to wrap our temporal brains around.
Whatever the answer is to the question about the origin of the universe, it sure will be an answer that strikes us as nothing short of extremely bizar.
These origins are simply unknown at this time.
My objection to nonsense arguments like Kalaam, is that it tries to use our everyday experience and knowledge from
within the universe and pretends it can be extrapolated to an "environment" where that universe does not exist.
That just doesn't make any sense. It simply isn't valid reasoning.
You can't use phenomena of physics
of the universe that manifest
IN the universe and simply assume that these phenomena also apply outside of it (whatever "outside of it" means, btw... that might not be sensible either).
No universe = no physics of the universe = no phenomena that are the result of those physics.
Faith underpins our axioms and other philosophical presuppositions, including those underpinning (and rarely questioned) science. Faith isn't an exclusively spiritual deal without special pleading.
Examples?
And while you are at it... perhaps try to define what you mean by "faith" as well...
Because the basal assumptions of science (reality is real, you can learn about reality, models with predictive power are better then models without such) are a very different species then the "faith" that theists have in their religions.
That statement is self-negating, given that you can't prove that standard empirically. Standards are presupposed, not empirically proven.
Standards are empirical. They are obtained and refined through historical experience. They are empirically supported by the continued success of their use.
I can look back and evaluate the various methodologies, standards and approaches of problem solving and consider their success rate.
For example, we (= humans) have tried superstition. It wasn't succesfull.
We have tried consulting the gods by looking at flight path of birds. It wasn't successfull.
We have tried consulting the stars by looking at their positions relative to the planets of the solar system. It wasn't succesfull.
Then, after vast series of failure after failure after failure... we tried looking at the evidence according to specific standards. And suddenly we were able to land robots on Mars.
It seems that methodology is a good way to solve problems.
