I've demonstrated it several times quite clearly to you — Devans99

You haven't.
Mostly just something like "... which is impossible", no contradiction derived.
The opening post started out with Leibnizian sufficient reason, which didn't really hold up, so you switched to

if there is no first cause, no effects are possible — Devans99

instead, without showing so.

Then there is nothing — Devans99

... is hence bare assertion. :confused:

How about the negative integers:

{ ..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 }

- We can see it is possible to define the negative integers if we start at -1 and work downwards through -2, -3, etc...
- Yet it is impossible to start at '...' and define the negative integers - there is no starting point so nothing can be defined/derived from that
- So if we now consider cause-effect, then the cause defines/derives the effect and the cause must exist before the effect
- So equivalently, it is not possible to define effects starting at '...' because all of the subsequent effects would be undefined.

Think about causality as a giant pyramid - the first cause is the pointy end and effects multiply towards the base of the pyramid (example: the break off shot in pool is the pointy end and then the balls colliding with each other lead to the middle/base of the pyramid). If there is no first cause, then the pyramid simply does not exist.

You think you can peer into the nature of time. You think that proving to yourself that God exists means you have to convince us. Why don't you spend your day trying to communicate with "Him" through prayer and good works instead of starting threads on here? I don't get it

I've considered it. It uses a complex variable for time. That is unlike any time I'm familiar with. So I do not think it reflects the universe we live in. — Devans99

I think physicists resort to complex (or imaginary) variables when it is convenient to do so and by doing so can predict phenomena. There's no magic or mysticism or metaphysics usually, just a path forward that produces results. The Feynman path integral uses a complex integrand, for example. :chin:

, looks (to me) like you want to show that you can't number all such moments non-indexically, but then you call it a day there, still no contradiction derived. :meh:

By the way, still treating ∞ as a number (integer in this case)...? (n)

You think you can peer into the nature of time. You think that proving to yourself that God exists means you have to convince us. Why don't you spend your day trying to communicate with "Him" through prayer and good works instead of starting threads on here? I don't get it — Gregory

Time and God are traditional subjects of philosophy and this is a philosophy forum - I don't see why you are complaining. I happen to be interested in these subjects and would like to discuss them with folks who share my interest. If they are of no interest to you, I suggest you don't read my posts and don't post replies.

BTW I do not pray because I do not believe God is omnipresent. I give to charity.

looks (to me) like you want to show that you can't number all such moments non-indexically, but then you call it a day there, still no contradiction derived. :meh: — jorndoe

I've already given you about 5 arguments that infinite causal regresses are impossible, including some that even a child could follow. It's really simple:

1. Assume there is no first cause
2. If there is no nth cause, then there is no nth+1 cause
3. So by mathematic induction, there are no causes/effects at all
4. But there are causes/effects in our universe (contradiction)
5. So there must be a first cause

Could you explain exactly what is wrong with the above argument?

By the way, still treating ∞ as a number (integer in this case)...? — jorndoe

I am treating ∞ as UNDEFINED. Please point out where I treated it as a number.

Well, yeah. Causes are also effects of prior "causes". It's effects all the way down. It's all information. Maybe trying to separate causes from their effects is the problem. Information is the relationship between causes and their effects. It's a relationship, not two separate things - causes and their effects.

So there must be a first cause — Devans99

Yep, I believe it was Kant who endorsed: All events must have a cause.

The synthetic a priori is alive and well!!!

Keep up the good work Devans. Don't be deterred by the naysayers. What do I mean by 'good work'?

Answer: embracing your God given sense of wonderment, and your Kantian intuition.

Why do I say 'God given'?

Answer: because wonder is a metaphysical/intrinsic attribute of consciousness.

Why do I associate wonder with the concept of God?

Answer: both are metaphysical concepts.

I challenge anyone here on this forum to explain the nature of wonder to me. How, why, what and where does wonder exist [in consciousness]. Pardon the mini-rant LOL.

3. So by mathematic induction, there are no causes/effects at all — Devans99

Not so.
You've shown that such causes don't have such (definite) numbers, that such causes aren't numbered so. (y)
But 3 is a non sequitur.
(That's roughly what I meant by "you can't number all such moments non-indexically".)

Incidentally reminds me a bit of Pólya's horses.

Leibnizian sufficient reason doesn't work to this end, the mathematical induction above doesn't either. :confused:

But 3 is a non sequitur — jorndoe

Why? If it holds for the base case and holds for the nth+1 case, then it holds for all n. Please explain.

I have proved that there must be a first cause several times to you. Maybe you will take Thomas Aquinas's word for it:

‘The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.’ - Thomas Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3, Summa Theologica

Let me ask you a question - can you prove that there could be something in existence without a first cause?

Thanks @3017amen!

Answer: embracing your God given sense of wonderment, and your Kantian intuition. — 3017amen

I think that it is a wonder that there is something rather than nothing. Nothing requires no cause and there is nothing to explain and indeed no-one to ask for an explanation. A clean, simple, null universe is the Occam's razor explanation. The fact that there is anything at all is a miracle IMO.

Yep. And among many other questions is, why do we have a sense of wonderment when instinct would do us just fine.

And while we're at it, throw-in abstract thinking and mathematics...

Don't see any biological advantages there LOL.

And comedy. And music. No evolutionary drivers.

Love.

Not to sound dogmatic and Fundy, but may as well throw in the paradigm of Faith and Hope too.
LOL

The world could have all the reality it needs to exist, everything you attribute to God, except consciousness and it's faculties of will and reason. Then the world explains itself because we are called to be moral. The struggle between good and evil in each of us is the reason for the world. Maybe animals struggle with these in a rudimentary fashion. There is no need to posit some extra dude out there somewhere

Okay. Is the Kantian judgement 'all events must have a cause' true or false?

And why should we care?

That's true when considered from materialism alone. But I am a materialist who thinks the world is God minus the consciousness. We are the higher form God takes. The world is self-caused, like you say of the dude out there. You have to admit this is a valid alternative to theism or deism

The world is self-caused, like you say of the dude out there. — Gregory

Self-caused is a logical impossibility. Uncaused as in beyond causality or time is not logically impossible.

Still, whatever you apply to the deist God as the reason why HE doesn't need a cause can be applied to the universe (with organic beings alone in all reality having consciousness). Prove me wrong.

Spacetime is fine-tuned for life. So there must be something external to spacetime that did that fine-tuning. Hence a requirement for something beyond spacetime. To imagine the universe in all its magnificence, existing eternally with no cause, is quite a stretch.

Nothing can exist in time without a temporal start, so the universe must have a temporal start. There must be a cause of that temporal start (of the universe).

I've explained already on this thread how the universe works mechanically. TIme starts from the first motion of gravity. There i no before in any sense whatsoever, even one for a dude out their to exist in. I am not saying anything Spinoza didn't, or Einstein or Hawking..

You switch from the first 2 Ways to the 5th. You're position really is the Third Way.

You think the world is not God, so there must be a God out there somewhere for you. As Spinoza pointed out, Aquinas was wrong to say the world can't be God just because it can be divided and change within the whole.

Please explain. — Devans99

Just did ...

You've shown that such causes don't have such (definite) numbers, that such causes aren't numbered so. (y) — jorndoe

1. suppose there's no 1^st cause
2. if there's no n^th cause, then there's no n+1^th cause
3. so, by induction such causes don't have such (definite) numbering

TIme starts from the first motion of gravity — Gregory

What causes that first motion?

You're position really is the Third Way. — Gregory

The third way is a beautiful argument that is supportive of my argument in the OP. I paraphrase it as:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. (IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence).
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (you would have no start - no coming into being - could you exist if you were not born?), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

1. suppose there's no 1st cause
2. if there's no nth cause, then there's no n+1th cause
3. so, by induction such causes don't have such (definite) numbering — jorndoe

And 4. if they cannot be assigned a definite numbering, they cannot exist. Leading to 5 - nothing exists presently. Thats a contradiction.

So, your Turtles must stop at the doorstep of the material world. The irony is that your sense of wonder about that very thing, is not material at all.

4. if they cannot be assigned a definite numbering, they cannot exist — Devans99

Gah non sequitur again.
Sure they can; you can use whatever numbering.
Let's put up a temporal flag pole (indexical) at 1970 Jan 1^st 00:00:00 UTC, and call it epoch 0 (incidentally commonly used in computing, I just checked, epoch time rounded off to seconds was 1578080549 when I typed this up).
Whatever back/forth can now be determined/used from that.

The previous moment defines the next, so all moments in your argument before 1970 Jan 1st 00:00:00 UTC are therefore undefined.

Or, assuming time has a start, then the time at the start of time is 00:00. Subsequent times are given by elapsed % 24. If time has no start, what then?

When did God create time, and how long did it take him?

Saying God started the first motion or gravity matters notta. There is no reason to believe there is a person out their, unless you believe in absolute time. Time as understood by Hawking, Sean Carroll ,and all those guys does not require a God. If you guys want to believe in medieval physics, go for it. I'm not wasting my time anymore. Devans99's intelligence is too high for the low he is stooping to in these discussions. It's BS