There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[AskTheFamily]

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure you don't mean God has a face and it emits light.

I mean God's living Name.

 

[JohnCR]

I haven't taken the time to read through this whole thread, so sorry if this has been said already. There is a huge leap in logic in the OP when he goes from an infinite series of causes and effects to concluding that there has to be an uncaused cause. If it is an infinite series of cause and effect, then by definition there would be no original cause because the chain of cause and effect would go back forever. That is the definition of infinite. The OP's logic would only hold true if he could prove the chain of cause and effect was actually finite. I also question the logic behind suggesting that a complex being like God is more likely to be uncaused than the matter and energy at the start of the universe.

I highly doubt that mankind will ever have sufficient answers as to the beginning of the universe.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I haven't taken the time to read through this whole thread, so sorry if this has been said already. There is a huge leap in logic in the OP when he goes from an infinite series of causes and effects to concluding that there has to be an uncaused cause. If it is an infinite series of cause and effect, then by definition there would be no original cause because the chain of cause and effect would go back forever. That is the definition of infinite. The OP's logic would only hold true if he could prove the chain of cause and effect was actually finite. I also question the logic behind suggesting that a complex being like God is more likely to be uncaused than the matter and energy at the start of the universe.

I highly doubt that mankind will ever have sufficient answers as to the beginning of the universe.

I suggest you then read the whole thread. It has been said already, and like Eudomist does constantly, it's simply just re-asserting what I refuted.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I suggest you then read the whole thread. It has been said already, and like Eudomist does constantly, it's simply just re-asserting what I refuted.

Yet you have not refuted it. An infinite series of causes and effects cannot have a first cause by definition. You came up with an argument that the infinite causes was a single effect (which you merely stated but did not prove), but there is no beginning for a first cause.

If it is infinite, then there is no beginning. How can you have a first cause if there is no beginning?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Yet you have not refuted it. An infinite series of causes and effects cannot have a first cause by definition. You came up with an argument that the infinite causes was a single effect (which you merely stated but did not prove), but there is no beginning for a first cause.

If it is infinite, then there is no beginning. How can you have a first cause if there is no beginning?

Ok I will re-write was has been written. Arguments in logic sometimes go on this form.

Suppose A is true.
A implies B.
B is not true.
Therefore A is false.

So every effect has a cause. A series of effect is an effect. Infinite series of effects, in an effect. If you say is any of the chain not any effect, you will say, no every part of the chain is an effect, but there is infnite series of effect.

Like a body is a series of effects, but we say "the body" is an effect, it's the same with an infinite series of effects.

So it needs Uncaused Cause because the whole thing is an effect. The whole infinite chain of cause and effect, is a an effect.

Now if there is an Uncaused Caused, yet it's true, there is not an infinite chain of cause and effect.

This is true. Therefore an infinite chain is impossible.

It's a shame that people don't know how to read what another person says, and just repeat.

Like Eud, he keeps re-asserting "no time", therefore it's not Eternal, also it didn't start, it's just him re-asserting over and over again, never changing anything he says, despite there being a refutation to it.

If I replied to it, you should address the reply to it, instead of just repeating the assertion.

Eud is just going to repeat and repeat assertion, "but time didn't exist then" so it "neither came to being" (which means Eternal) nor "Eternal" (which means came to being).

He can't realize he is asserting that it's temporal and Eternal, by saying it's not temporal, and not eternal at the same time.

I don't what to do to help him as he will just repeat his assertion which is not logical and has no logical basis, and is a fallacy.

Anyways, I hope God guides all of you, and brings you into the fold of his mercy.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ok I will re-write was has been written. Arguments in logic sometimes go on this form.

Suppose A is true.
A implies B.
B is not true.
Therefore A is false.

Sometimes...

So every effect has a cause.

That does not follow on from what you said at all.

A series of effect is an effect. Infinite series of effects, in an effect. If you say is any of the chain not any effect, you will say, no every part of the chain is an effect, but there is infnite series of effect.

Like a body is a series of effects, but we say "the body" is an effect, it's the same with an infinite series of effects.

So it needs Uncaused Cause because the whole thing is an effect. The whole infinite chain of cause and effect, is a an effect.

If it is infinite, there is no beginning. If there is no beginning, there can be no cause. I've already explained this to you - I don't get why you can't understand this.

Now if there is an Uncaused Caused, yet it's true, there is not an infinite chain of cause and effect.

This is true. Therefore an infinite chain is impossible.

Irrelevant. We're assuming an infinite chain is possible (and it is, your 'logic' makes no sense).

 

[AskTheFamily]

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.

 

[AskTheFamily]

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.

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

Thanks.

 

[durangodawood]

...since a series of effects, needs a cause...

Didnt we dispense with this earlier?
.
We ONLY "know" that effects need causes by induction based on our natural experience. There MAY WELL be an uncaused thing or event (lets not call it an "effect" as that implies a cause).
.
Religious people posit God as such thing. I propose the universe as such a thing.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Didnt we dispense with this earlier?

Yes so what's the point of re-asserting this claim? We had a discussion on logic and axioms and about the universe. You want to always repeat and repeat? Assert, re-assert, re-assert.

 

[Nooj]

Yes so what's the point of re-asserting this claim?

Because you don't get it.

 

[AskTheFamily]

.
Religious people posit God as such thing. I propose the universe as such a thing.
.

universe is in effect, the whole thread was about refuting your proposition, and we also have a thread about the uncaused cause which is a different purpose then this thread.

An event is an effect.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Because you don't get it.

Ok so repeating it a hundred times but not addressing the points I brought to refute it, is going to make me get it?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We observe causality as an aspect of existence because of our own dependence on our perception and appropriation of that input. If I see that there is necessarily an interrelation between certain events, causing other events or bringing things to completion.

The conclusion to the question of where our universe came from has other answers besides the two already noted (God as uncaused cause that requires no question, or universe as innate immanent existence that surpasses cause and effect overall), albeit the answer I tend to posit would be called lazy in some regard. If we can agree that causality is at least a reasonable property of existence to posit in regards to everything, it would be more reasonable to conclude that we cannot know anything beyond speculation about the nature of what happens before the Big Bang's singularity. At best one could posit that existence is cyclical (which doesn't negate the universe's existence or finding purpose in existence), with universes being generated over yet undetermined amounts of time within each universe's particular continuum. Call it a more Buddhist/Jain cosmology

 

[AskTheFamily]

We observe causality as an aspect of existence because of our own dependence on our perception and appropriation of that input.

We observe many logical things, but we can know they are true and the logic is true and evidently true without doubt, and not simply a matter of observation.

If we can agree that causality is at least a reasonable property of existence to posit in regards to everything, it would be more reasonable to conclude that we cannot know anything beyond speculation about the nature of what happens before the Big Bang's singularity.

This is none-sequitor.

At best one could posit that existence is cyclical (which doesn't negate the universe's existence or finding purpose in existence),

if you A -> B -> C ->A circular, it's proven to be false and impossible. In fact, when argument is made on such a circle, we say this is circle reasoning, and can see it makes no sense.

It's the same with cause and effect, to go in circles make no sense.

However, this is still an infinite chain, which has been refuted in this thread.

 

[ukgrace]

I mean God's living Name.

That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We observe many logical things, but we can know they are true and the logic is true and evidently true without doubt, and not simply a matter of observation.

Axiomatic statements are only true if you take those as somehow unquestionable. Logic is based on these axioms and not all of them necessarily apply equally in all situations we can consider, such as cosmology or ethics for two complex areas of investigation. Therefore logic is not unquestionable, but does indeed have practical applications within considerations of metaphysical and other questions such as the one that we are considering at present: why is there something rather than nothing or a variant thereof, how did the something we observe to exist come into existence?

This is none-sequitor.

I fail to see how mentioning that we can't reasonbly posit anything as empirically so in regard to before the Big Bang singularity is irrelevant or detracting from the discussion at present on cosmological issues related to ontology.

if you A -> B -> C ->A circular, it's proven to be false and impossible. In fact, when argument is made on such a circle, we say this is circle reasoning, and can see it makes no sense.

It's the same with cause and effect, to go in circles make no sense.

However, this is still an infinite chain, which has been refuted in this thread.

First off I didn't explicitly posit an infinite chain, only that reasonably if we follow your logic, a first cause is only necessary for a final absolute answer, which is not what one necessarily seeks for in a scientific or philosophical investigation. At best we seek out answers that have practical applications and give us a feeling of accomplishment, not necessarily security or comfort which are best found in religion and the arts to an extent.


Causality as a phenomenon can go in circles, the water cycle comes to mind, it is disrupted, but the basic process of the water cycle is as the word itself implies, cyclical. The existence of water is already involved there, so admittedly it is an example a posteriori as opposed to the more pressing matter at hand of the a priori attempt of positing some axiom as to how to solve the problem of infinite regress.

I wasn't positing a cyclical solution to the problem, though the idea of a contracting and expanding universe may still have validity, though I admit scientifically the evidence suggests a near infinitely stretching universe, though the big crunch theory could still apply in the future since we don't know how far time and space could stretch in our universe before it inevitably collapses on itself, either through gravitation of galaxies or just general heat dispersion through collapsing suns, etc.

 

[razeontherock]

"I mean God's living Name."

That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.

That may mean nothing to you, but seeing as you never found an enduring Faith how does that matter?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Faith can endure without having an uncaused cause in the form of a supernatural entity as its object. Faith can be directed towards principles as practical axioms. Someone not finding meaning in your object of ultimate concern/faith doesn't suggest that they cannot find meaning outside of that object

 

[AskTheFamily]

That sentence means absolutely nothing, those are just words strung together because you think they sound good.

words are suppose to represent concepts. If you believe there is no concept of a living name/face of God conveyed by the words, it's up to you to believe that.