Please elaborate...

Yes but working from the other direction - there is no start - so none of the years are defined. And that is the correct direction to work from - time does not run backwards - the future does not define the past. An analogy of how it works is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/277817 — Devans99

You were talking about an infinite regress. That means backwards, not forwards. You can't work from the other direction. That makes no sense. If you pick an arbitrary point and go forwards, you won't reach any meaningful conclusion. And by that, I mean something like logically relevant, not something like comforting to hear or confirmation bias.

I was just applying logic to a segment of your own reasoning. But you don't like the conclusion.

You also don't like logic, unless you think it is useful for hiding your dogma. You're not hiding it well here, which is a good sign. I'm glad a whole bunch of us are logical enough to see through it. If you're seeking converts, you would fare better with a dumber audience.

You are confused. Causality works forwards rather than backwards. So you have to work from the oldest first - the more recent elements depend on the oldest element. If the oldest element is missing, more recent elements are not defined:

A (causes)-> B (causes)-> C

If you take A away, B and C go. A regress needs a first element. An infinite regress does not have a first element.

One...if you suggest there IS a "first cause"...that means that there does not have to be a first cause. Either something CAN exist without a first cause or one cannot.

Two...any question that can be asked in a variation of, "Is it possible that..."...

...is always answered, "YES!"...unless it has been established that what is being asked about is impossible.

Everything must have a cause apart from the first cause:

(first cause) -> A -> B -> C

If we take away the first cause, then A, B, C don't exist anymore.

For any object, you should be able to trace a causal history back to the first cause; if you can't, then the object does not exist.

Devans, the moment you say there is a "first cause"...you are saying "Not everything has a cause."

That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue.

Just about the only one who does not see that (or, who does not acknowledge that)...

...is you.

That seems to be occasioned by your investment in your thesis.

Devans, the moment you say there is a "first cause"...you are saying "Not everything has a cause."

That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue. — Frank Apisa

No: everything IN TIME has a cause. The first cause is outside time so is not subject to causality.

That is the only way that anything can logically exist.

Devans99
1.3k

Devans, the moment you say there is a "first cause"...you are saying "Not everything has a cause."

That is inescapable...and is at the heart of the flaw in your thinking on this issue. — Frank Apisa


No: everything IN TIME has a cause. The first cause is outside time so is not subject to causality.

That is the only way that anything can logically exist. — Devans99

That IS NOT the only way, Devans.

That is the way YOU want to be "the only way"...so that you can reach the logical extension on it. But in order for that to be a valid P1 for the "extension"...you would have to validate it...WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Your problem here is that you are working inexorably toward something that you are pretending you are not working toward.

You are confused. Causality works forwards rather than backwards. — Devans99

No, you are confused. I know how causality works. You definitely don't need to explain it to me in the way that you're doing. The problem is that you don't seem to realise that you're being illogical.

So you have to work from the oldest first - the more recent elements depend on the oldest element. If the oldest element is missing, more recent elements are not defined: — Devans99

Are you insane? There is no oldest element in an infinite regress. It's an infinite bloody regress.

An infinite regress does not have a first element. — Devans99

Yes, that's obvious.

A regress needs a first element. — Devans99

That's pure dogma. You don't really belong here on a philosophy forum. Dogma is unwelcome.

I've explained the giant and obvious fault with your argument about "defined" events. An infinite regress would just have an infinite number of defined events. So you aren't justified at all if you make up some bullshit that I haven't provided any criticism. You're just quite literally deluded.

That IS NOT the only way, Devans — Frank Apisa

Demonstrate how anything can exist without a first cause please.

Any system can be thought of as a hierarchy of cause and effect. A pool table is an example. The player breaks off and the balls bump into each other - there is a hierarchy of cause and effect with the player breaking off at the top of the hierarchy and the balls finally at rest at the bottom of the hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is a system with no first cause: this would be equivalent to balls wizzing around the pool table by themselves without the player breaking off.

That's pure dogma. You don't really belong here on a philosophy forum. Dogma is unwelcome. — S

You are illogical and closed minded. I've explained an infinite regress in enough detail that a child could get it. I give up. :(

I give up. — Devans99

Well yes, if you simply lack the capability of understanding what's wrong with your arguments or you're wilfully ignorant, then you definitely should just give up.

Devans99
1.3k

That IS NOT the only way, Devans — Frank Apisa


Demonstrate how anything can exist without a first cause please.

Any system can be thought of as a hierarchy of cause and effect. A pool table is an example. The player breaks off and the balls bump into each other - there is a hierarchy of cause and effect with the player breaking off at the top of the hierarchy and the balls finally at rest at the bottom of the hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is a system with no first cause: this would be equivalent to balls wizzing around the pool table by themselves without the player breaking off. — Devans99

YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY.

If YOUR "first cause" can exist...then SOMETHING without a prior cause...can exist.

That thing...you want to be GOD. All the bullshit aside, Devans...you want the "first cause" to be a GOD...one that you have in mind already.

But if that can exist without a prior cause...

...just eliminate the argument of infinite regression.

It doesn't work.

YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY. — Frank Apisa

Yes, let me rephrase the question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please.

If you can't reasonably rule out an infinite regress, then your argument will never work.

You can't reasonably rule out an infinite regress.

Therefore, your argument will never work.

Psychologically, you can't accept the fact that your argument will never work.

And repeating a failed argument, no matter how many times, won't magically make it work.

Devans99
1.3k

YOUR FIRST CAUSE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT A PRIOR CAUSE...WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROBABLY MEANT TO SAY. — Frank Apisa


Yes, let me rephrase the question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please. — Devans99

So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining?

C'mon!

AND...if I am not able to demonstrate that...and if Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman were not able to demonstrate that (they may have been able to do so)...
...that would not mean it cannot happen.

It might just mean that HUMANS are not yet able to explain it.

Stop dogmatically proclaiming what must be and what cannot be in the REALITY of existence.

YOU do not know what MUST BE...or WHAT CANNOT BE...in the REALITY.

So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining? — Frank Apisa

The logic is that everything in time forms an infinite regress with no start. The only way escape that infinite regress is a timeless first cause. Else there can be nothing. Unless you have another way?

I think you are avoiding answering this question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please.

The logic — Devans99

Fails.

And this has been demonstrated.

You want a repetition because you can't accept that fact. That's pretty insane when you think about it: just repeating things over and over again because of your psychology.

Where?

Where? — Devans99

Seek treatment. You can't see because you're willfully blind.

Devans99
1.3k

So now I must accept the dogmatic proclamation that "time" did not exist before that "first cause" that you are imagining? — Frank Apisa


The logic is that everything in time forms an infinite regress with no start. The only way escape that infinite regress is a timeless first cause. Else there can be nothing. Unless you have another way?

I think you are avoiding answering this question:

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please. — Devans99

Stop pontificating.

Just stop.

So you admit you cannot answer the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause?

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
So you admit you cannot answer the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause? — Devans99

I have answered the question, Devans.

Don't get smartassed with me. You are way outmatched there.

All you have said is what about God? Doesn't he need a cause? To which I have pointed out that God is timeless so no he does not need a cause. So I am still waiting for an answer to the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause?

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa

All you have said is what about God? Doesn't he need a cause? To which I have pointed out that God is timeless so no he does not need a cause. So I am still waiting for an answer to the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause? — Devans99

I do not know...

...AND NEITHER DO YOU.

None of us knows.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT NOTHING CAN EXIST IN TIME WITHOUT A FIRST CAUSE.

Can you finally grok that?

Thank you. So in summary:

- we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
Thank you. So in summary:

- we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause — Devans99

I would use slightly different wording. I would say:

Understanding the true nature of the REALITY of existence could be as unattainable for humans...as understanding the relationship between The Milky Way Galaxy and M31.

That is not to say there are not ants somewhere in my backyard thinking..."I know the answers"...and trying to get its fellow ants to accept the truth of that.

we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause — Devans99


I would use slightly different wording. I would say:

Understanding the true nature of the REALITY of existence could be as unattainable for humans...as understanding the relationship between The Milky Way Galaxy and M31.

That is not to say there are not ants somewhere in my backyard thinking..."I know the answers"...and trying to get its fellow ants to accept the truth of that. — Frank Apisa

there is truth to that but this is a forum where we argue and have the potential for atleast honing our own ideas or even learning new ideas. You clearly don't like his ideas on this forum topic. I don't see an end to this debate anytime soon.

there is truth to that but this is a forum where we argue and have the potential for atleast honing our own ideas or even learning new ideas. You clearly don't like his ideas on this forum topic. I don't see an end to this debate anytime soon. — christian2017

There shouldn't be an end. "An end" is not what anyone should be aiming for...or they will be disappointed considering the topics.

I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others."

ok