There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[Eudaimonist]

Ok let's re-try.

Every effect needs a cause.
A series of effects, is an effect itself.
An infinite series were it possible to exist, would be an effect in itself.
This would mean it needs a Cause that is not an effect.
A series with a cause that is not an effect cannot be infinite series.
Therefore an infinite series of effects is impossible.

There's a serious flaw with this reasoning. Effects can be causes of future effects. If the universe had an infinite past (assuming an infinite regress is possible), that means that every identifiable effect is simultaneously a cause, all the way back through infinity.

Therefore, no need for a Cause.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

Eud, your point is just repeating what people have said through out, just in different words.

Look at what has been said about proof by contradiction.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So just in case you going to repeat:

If it is infinite, there is no beginning.
there is no beginning, there can be no cause.

I agree. And if there is no cause, it cannot exist, since a series of effects, needs a cause.

And you know that applies everywhere how?

This may be my first ever opportunity to use the 'do you know everything ever' argument. Very exciting, as it is usually used by other people arguing against me.

I suggest re-reading rules of logic and what makes an argument valid.

Thanks.

Logic has nothing to do with this. You're applying physical laws to a situation that may or may not be governed by them.

Even within the universe, an infinite series will have no first cause. I'll ask you a question that I've asked you before, and hopefully this time I will get an answer.

Where is the beginning of the number line? What is the first number?

 

[durangodawood]

universe is an effect...

You have no idea whether this is true.
.
You are merely defining the universe as an effect. If the universe is eternal and uncaused, then it is not an effect.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You have no idea whether this is true.
.
You are merely defining the universe as an effect. If the universe is eternal and uncaused, then it is not an effect.
.

Universe is not uncaused, and is an effect, becasue the Sun, moon, and you and me, are part of it.

You just invoke "universe" while ignoring it's very definition. You also just repeat assertion that has been refuted in the first post of this thread and more.

I made a new thread with axioms of A and B. See you there.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Universe is not uncaused, and is an effect, becasue the Sun, moon, and you and me, are part of it.

Seeing as you are so fixated on logic, surely you should know that the reasons for an argument actually have to be related to the argument itself. This sentence is not remotely logical.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Seeing as you are so fixated on logic, surely you should know that the reasons for an argument actually have to be related to the argument itself. This sentence is not remotely logical.

You should pick a new word then the universe. Because I am part of the definition of the universe.

The sun is part of the universe. You could say something else, you can say there is infinite cause and effect chain, which I refuted already.

But you should stop invoking the universe word. The computer you see is part of the universe? Is it uncaused?

If you mean energy/matter always existed, just say that.

Stop abusing the word universe. Some people say the stupidest things like everything in the universe is subject to the laws of the universe, but the universe is not subject to those laws... And they think they are intelligent by speaking jibberish like this.

 

[durangodawood]

Stop abusing the word universe. Some people say the stupidest things like everything in the universe is subject to the laws of the universe, but the universe is not subject to those laws... And they think they are intelligent by speaking jibberish like this.

You have no idea what youre talking about.
You really dont.
And I dont mean that as an insult.
.
You think you can grasp the nature of the universe itself?
.
I laugh at that!
.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You should pick a new word then the universe. Because I am part of the definition of the universe.

You're part of one definition of the universe, yes.

The sun is part of the universe. You could say something else, you can say there is infinite cause and effect chain, which I refuted already.

You should really stop claiming you've refuted something when you haven't. An important part of having a debate is not ignoring people's arguments under the pretense that you've already disproved them.

Stop abusing the word universe. Some people say the stupidest things like everything in the universe is subject to the laws of the universe, but the universe is not subject to those laws... And they think they are intelligent by speaking jibberish like this.

Welcome to the English language, where one word can have many meanings. The components of the universe are subject to the laws of cause and effect, but that may not apply to the universe as a whole. Is that more to your taste?

 

[AskTheFamily]

The components of the universe are subject to the laws of cause and effect, but that may not apply to the universe as a whole. Is that more to your taste?

The same laws apply to all components of the universe, the universe is the sum of all components, so it's pure stupidity.

 

[durangodawood]

The same laws apply to all components of the universe, the universe is the sum of all components, so it's pure stupidity.

How do you know that the universe isnt an eternal time/space continuum filled with matter and energy.
.
You have no way to know! Its funny that can just assert special knowledge about this.
.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The same laws apply to all components of the universe, the universe is the sum of all components, so it's pure stupidity.

No it isn't. The component parts of the universe (your definition) resides within the Universe (the other definition) and are therefore subject to the physical laws that are a component of the universe (your definition). However, the universe (your definition) as a whole does not reside within the Universe (the other definition) and therefore may, as an entire entity, be subject to different physical laws. The laws of physics only apply to the components of the universe (your definition), and we can't be entirely sure of that, as our understanding of them may be incorrect or incomplete. The Universe (the other definition) may reside within a different reality/space/etc. that does not follow the laws of physics as we know them. It's really really simple to understand.

When I say Universe, I mean space, or the entity that exists as a result of the Big Bang. I am assuming your definition means the component parts of the Universe (the former definition), and nothing more.

 

[AskTheFamily]

How do you know that the universe isnt an eternal time/space continuum filled with matter and energy.
.

You should look at the title of this thread. Fancy words don't change concepts.

 

[durangodawood]

You should look at the title of this thread. Fancy words don't change concepts.

Its not the words.
.
You think you understand the universe conceptually. Thats laughable.
.