There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[Eudaimonist]

Ok so this is not infinite chain so the argument of this thread was not aimed at this but this is even easier to refute.

Oh, good. Give it a try.

It has a start, the start implies it has begining.

A "start" means the same thing to me as "beginning", so okay.

It couldn't have just began and "start".

Really?

If it's Eternal, it's motionless, it;s away is. If the start is moving, it's not always is, and it has begining, and hence, not the First Existence, but the first existence is what created it.

Good try, but not true. If the start is moving, it is always in existence. For all of time, it exists. It doesn't just appear out of nothing. It is precisely First Existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

An infinite chain of cause and effect without uncaused, is still, series of effect, and thus in need of cause.

If its infinite, then no matter how far back you go, you will never find an uncaused event. So no need to invoke a "first" cause.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That ought to keep you busy.

I'm so glad I can post links now. lol

As usual, I say what I posted already refutes this. It's up to you to try to understand an argument or constantly misunderstand argument like in the other thread and make up stuff and deny 100% scientific facts and principles of evolution, it's up to you, really.

 

[AskTheFamily]

If its infinite, then no matter how far back you go, you will never find an uncaused event. So no need to invoke a "first" cause.
.

Yet if it it's infinite cause and effect, the whole thing is still an effect, and in need of invoking a uncaused cause be it first or constantly eternally causing it. However I believe it's rational to believe then the chain is finite.

Do you notice how you guys never address the actual argument but stick to cliches and repeat what has already been addressed.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Every series of cause and effect is an effect. Like the body is a series of cause and effect, but it's an effect as well.

A chair is an effect, that has series of cause and effects.

The universe be it finite or infinite, a chain of finite cause and effect, or infinite chain of effects, is still an affect. the infinite chain is still need of a cause. There thus is Uncaused creator that to that chain.

It's logically sound. And people can deny premises like: Every effect has a cause.

IT would change the soundness of argument, just increases your stubbornness against the Creator of the universe.

 

[durangodawood]

Yet if it it's infinite cause and effect, the whole thing is still an effect, and in need of invoking a uncaused cause be it first or constantly eternally causing it. However I believe it's rational to believe then the chain is finite.

So there is a "whole thing", a universe, which requires a cause?
.
Here's the problem with that argument:
We only know that things need causes based on our observation of things inside the universe.
.
As for whether universes themselves need causes.... we have no idea.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Here's the problem with that argument:
We only know that things need causes based on our observation of things inside the universe.

This is false. We know to be true with or without observation in the universe.

So for example, let's a giant cube of metal appeared in the sky and fell. It would be irrational to conclude based on this observation that it can pop out of no where without cause.

Cause and effect is rational and part of logic. Logic is true whether it's observed or not.

Never less, it still follows that everything inside the universe is the universe itself, for "uni" is about being "all". So since we know "all" things needs a cause, "the universe" = "All things", hence it needs a cause.

.

As for whether universes themselves need causes.... we have no idea.
.

Universe means all things, so "universes" would be "universe", we are changing definition of universe when you exlude a existing world and things from it.

So your denying the premise:

"every effect has a cause".

Otherwise the argument is valid.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Really?

If it was in movement, it wasn't always there, it had a start, and your trying to assert "start" was "always there" which is a contradiction.

If started, and moved from there, it was not always there, it was not Eternal.

I really don't what else I can say to help you out there.

So just give it point start, and give that point power and movement, then assert that start point always existed, doesn't make logical sense. To assert movement just started from it is stupid. And to make "the begining of time" to "Eternal always there" makes no sense.

 

[durangodawood]

Cause and effect is rational and part of logic. Logic is true whether it's observed or not.

Not so. You USE logic to argue about cause and effect. But all our reasoning about its necessity is in fact inductive: based on repeated observation.
.

Never less, it still follows that everything inside the universe is the universe itself, for "uni" is about being "all". So since we know "all" things needs a cause, "the universe" = "All things", hence it needs a cause.

In casual speak "universe" can mean "everything".
But for this discussion its more helpful to consider the universe as "our particular space-time continuum"..
.
The entire basis for our inductive reasoning about cause-effect can only occur within/inside our universe.
.
We have no way to get outside that point of view to determine whether the universe itself requires a cause.
.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If it's infinite, every cause has a cause. I agree. The whole thing is still an effect? Or do you disagree?

The whole what? Each effect is an effect, yes. I'm not sure if everything is an effect or not, but an effect requires a cause, yes.

Every effect needs a cause. The whole thing is an effect, the whole thing is need of cause. That cause cannot be part of it, because it would be "part of the infinite series" which is an effect.

Let me ask you a question. Where does the number line start? Which number is the first number, the lowest number possible?

The answer is that there isn't one. Infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end, it just is. Therefore, an infinite series of cause and effect will not have a first cause.

The "whole infinite chain of cause and effect" that is assumed to possible, is an "effect" in itself that is need of Cause. It's obvious, just think about it.

I refer you to my post above. You don't understand the concept of infinity. There is no beginning or end.

A body is an effect, we can say the whole body is need of cause, even if it is a series of cause and effect. Same with universe, even if we suppose it's an infinite chain of cause and effect, the whole thing is still in need of Cause by the premise that every effect is in need of cause.

Again, I refer you to my point above.

 

[SithDoughnut]

This is false. We know to be true with or without observation in the universe.

So for example, let's a giant cube of metal appeared in the sky and fell. It would be irrational to conclude based on this observation that it can pop out of no where without cause.

Cause and effect is rational and part of logic. Logic is true whether it's observed or not.

This only applies to things within the universe. Universes themselves do not apply to this rule, because they could quite possibly run on different rules.

Never less, it still follows that everything inside the universe is the universe itself, for "uni" is about being "all". So since we know "all" things needs a cause, "the universe" = "All things", hence it needs a cause.

We don't know that. Anyone who claims to know that is delusional.

Universe means all things, so "universes" would be "universe", we are changing definition of universe when you exlude a existing world and things from it.

So your denying the premise:

"every effect has a cause".

Otherwise the argument is valid.

No it isn't. You're apply the laws of physics to something that might not be run by them.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The whole what? Each effect is an effect, yes. I'm not sure if everything is an effect or not, but an effect requires a cause, yes.

Including the whole chain of the effects, which is an effect.

The answer is that there isn't one. Infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end, it just is.

The fact it has no end, yet we observe increase and limit, and increase to that limit, just shows that time is not infinite. But aside from this, it doesn't matter, I wasn't arguing the Kalam argument, that it needs begining.

I was saying the whole thing, infinite or not, is till an effect. So the whole thing (the whole chain of effects, infinite or not) is in need of a cause.

Therefore, an infinite series of cause and effect will not have a first cause.

Yet it still requires a first cause by another sound logic, so it's a contradiction.

We can conclude there is no infinite chain of cause and effect.

I refer you to my post above. You don't understand the concept of infinity. There is no beginning or end.

Wow....

Again, I refer you to my point above.

I suggest trying to read what others write and their argument.

You said the same thing you said last time and I refuted the same way.

 

[Cute Tink]

Just as a point of curiosity: Is your Uncaused Cause you refer to your God?

 

[ukgrace]

No one believing that the universes could have simply came out of nothingness.

Could you possibly tell us what the creator made everything from then?
Thank you.

 

[durangodawood]

Let me make the most crucial point, in my opinion:
.
IF we can suppose an uncaused creator,
THEN there is no reason why we cannot suppose un uncaused universe.
BECAUSE based on our position inside the universe, we have no way of knowing whether universes themselves require a cause.
.
(actually the "if" statement isnt even needed, but it shows how we are willing to admit that things outside our realm might not behave like things inside.)
.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Including the whole chain of the effects, which is an effect.

The effects are individual but yes.

The fact it has no end, yet we observe increase and limit, and increase to that limit, just shows that time is not infinite.

Time could potentially be infinite. The thing about infinity is that it can work in all sorts of ways. If time never ends, it is infinite. We just don't know if it will end or not yet.

But aside from this, it doesn't matter, I wasn't arguing the Kalam argument, that it needs begining.

Neither am I. I am disagreeing with you when you said that your OP applies to infinite series of cause and effect, which is false.

I was saying the whole thing, infinite or not, is till an effect. So the whole thing (the whole chain of effects, infinite or not) is in need of a cause.

Yes, and that cause requires a cause, and so on. You do know what infinity means, right?

Yet it still requires a first cause by another sound logic, so it's a contradiction.

No it isn't. 'Another sound logic' isn't even proper English, let alone evidence.

We can conclude there is no infinite chain of cause and effect.

So far you've said nothing but nonsense, so we can conclude no such thing. I really think you have no idea what you are talking about, I honestly do.

Wow....

I suggest trying to read what others write and their argument.

You said the same thing you said last time and I refuted the same way.

You haven't refuted anything.

Let me ask you this: why does an infinite series of cause and effect require a first cause? So far you haven't given any reasoning so this is your opportunity.

 

[AskTheFamily]

This only applies to things within the universe. Universes themselves do not apply to this rule, because they could quite possibly run on different rules.

Logic is sound everywhere. There might be differnet quantity, but logic remains true.

However as I said "things within universe" = Universe. There is no difference at all. That is what Universe means by definiton. It means "All existing things" but God is always excluded from that however.

We don't know that. Anyone who claims to know that is delusional.

We all know it but some people want to cover up truth to deny their Creator. He made them know things by they deny what they know so as to deny him. Oh, but had they known the punishment that awaits for such behaviour.

No it isn't. You're apply the laws of physics to something that might not be run by them.

So now we can't even use our logic + can't rely on laws of physics.

We throw away both, why?

What is your logic that we cannot know? Through logic? But you say you can't know things logically for sure, so how do you know you can't rely on your Logic to start with Logic which you deny really can know things for sure?

You simply get to assert that we don;'t know if our logic is sound, all we can do observe laws, but can't apply what we observe or apply what are logic tells us?

Is this your argument?

 

[ukgrace]

Originally Posted by AskTheFamily

No one believing that the universes could have simply came out of nothingness.
​

Could you possibly tell us what the creator made everything from then?
Thank you.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Logic is sound everywhere. There might be differnet quantity, but logic remains true.

Why?

However as I said "things within universe" = Universe. There is no difference at all. That is what Universe means by definiton. It means "All existing things" but God is always excluded from that however.

Oh, now God is excluded? Then your definition is wrong. If the universe means 'all existing things', then God is included. If God is not included, then you're using a different definition.

We all know it but some people want to cover up truth to deny their Creator. He made them know things by they deny what they know so as to deny him. Oh, but had they known the punishment that awaits for such behaviour.

Have you run out of actual arguments? Threats are not arguments, you know.

So now we can't even use our logic + can't rely on laws of physics.

We throw away both, why?

Because both run on laws within the universe. We're not talking about things inside the universe, we're talking about universes.

What is your logic that we cannot know? Through logic? But you say you can't know things logically for sure, so how do you know you can't rely on your Logic to start with Logic which you deny really can know things for sure?

You simply get to assert that we don;'t know if our logic is sound, all we can do observe laws, but can't apply what we observe or apply what are logic tells us?

Is this your argument?

I don't know, I have no idea what you just wrote. I did use logic, because one of the wonderful things about logic is that it can be used to prove itself.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a coherent argument.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The effects are individual but yes.

Ok so it needs a cause.

Time could potentially be infinite. The thing about infinity is that it can work in all sorts of ways. If time never ends, it is infinite. We just don't know if it will end or not yet.

What happened to infinity means no begining or end? Since we not at the end, so what happened to your definition of infinity? Just changing it on the fly as it suits you?

Neither am I. I am disagreeing with you when you said that your OP applies to infinite series of cause and effect, which is false.

Ok, that's fine. It doesn't change it being true because the whole of it is an effect. A body is a series of effects, not just one. A universe is a series of an effect, but still an effect. Infinite cause and effect, is still an effect.

It's sound but you are welcome to deny self-evident premises. Won't change the argument being sound.

Yes, and that cause requires a cause, and so on. You do know what infinity means, right?

No I do know what it means.

No it isn't. 'Another sound logic' isn't even proper English, let alone evidence.

Sound = valid with true premises in Logic.

Valid means the argument follows. When all premises are also true, then it's sound.

So far you've said nothing but nonsense, so we can conclude no such thing. I really think you have no idea what you are talking about, I honestly do.

Good for you.

Let me ask you this: why does an infinite series of cause and effect require a first cause?

This is what the topic is about, look at the title.

Slow down, digest, digest, then reply.