Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Ether one of them always existed, or it spontaneously came into existence. There are no other options. What do you think happened?

Everything that has come into being needs a cause of its doing so. And as there is not an actual infinity of past causes, some things must not have come into being. That is, some things must just exist, without having been caused to.

But there does not need to be one such thing. Indeed, the idea seems unreasonable, given the complexity of the universe. More reasonable to infer that it is the product of the causal activity of lots of uncreated things, not one alone.

And it is even more unreasonable, it seems to me, to suppose that the one uncreated thing who created it all is God - an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. For we are all immoral and ignorant fools living in a sub optimal world - a world that does not at all seem the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person.

It is odd, to me, that so many theists - and I am a theist - believe that God created us and the universe we live in. Seems grotesquely implausible. More reasonable to believe that God exists and did not create us or the universe we live in. More reasonable to believe it to be the product of the causal activity of lots and lots of uncreated idiots.

Yes.

The reason for everything is a thing that came before it. — Ree Zen

Not the radius of a circle. Well, actually yes it's just depending on the point you started from (your moment of observation in time) you will eventually reach a point where everything can only be because something comes after it, which also came before it. It's one of the great paradoxes of hypothetical physics and continuity of the universe. I wouldn't try to figure it out though. The last guy who did has to be in a white room 23 hours a day now and requires assistance using the restroom.

Is a black hole pure nothingness? What about anti-matter? Just because the reason for everything is a thing that came before it, does not mean that definition has any sort of correlation or dependence on "nothing". Everything could, in theory, blow up and create nothing. You know why not right. You wouldn't know. Maybe it is an intrinsic quality of "nothing" whenever it exists to create "something" after a set amount of time. Maybe even just a single atom. And over time, we end with entire universes. Again why not right. You wouldn't know. Just because it "doesn't make sense" does not mean you can absolutely rule it out by virtue of your limited understanding alone. Anti-matter is inherently extremely volatile and explosive creating immense explosions from nearly no particles at all. Who's to say... the spirit world or realm or afterlife is one of antimatter that is exactly the same as ours, but better. Here we have water, there we would have anti-water. Here we have fire, there we would have anti-fire. This would explain why ghosts are always exploding when caught.

Furthermore who's to say time is not linear but something of a loop or contained, enclosed and periodically self-resetting system (a universe). You know, just in case things go wrong. Which based on history seems rather likely eventually.

You can't tell the difference between there's nothing and there's something, it's just that you don't see it!

There's no reason & There's a reason that I haven't figured it out are identical twins. So...

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview.

Nothing personal, just an observation.

Is "no reason" ever an acceptable answer?

Depends on the relationship between the person asking the question and the person replying "No reason".

The subordinate person can get into trouble if they ever answer "No reason", but the one in position of power can say so as they please.

There's no reason & There's a reason that I haven't figured it out are identical twins. — Agent Smith

I would call them dizygotic (non-identical) twins. I don't know the reason for most things I observe, but I understand how a cause could exist for these things. But for the existence of anything at all, it is not possible for a Cause to exist. Otherwise a separate initial Cause for Existence would have to exist and we would inquire about what caused that. The infinite regression of causes leaves us with only 2 options: a spontaneous event or an eternal cause(s).

The reason for everything is a thing that came before it. — Ree Zen

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to say that reason is the same thing as cause. The idea that every phenomenon has a cause has been questioned many times, and not just recently. This is a summary of Bertrand Russell's position in 1912:

Writing in 1912, Bertrand Russell declared talk of causes and of causality to be obsolete, noting its elimination from scientific theory as he saw it: "in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word 'cause' never occurs.. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm." Causal laws, he claimed, "tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful." Not only did Russell consider causal talk to be obsolete, he thought remnants of causal talk outside science to be harmful: "the word 'cause' is so inexorably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable." There is, he maintained, no clear, philosophically defensible notion of causation.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? — pfirefry

Fish laid eggs long before there were chickens.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Ether one of them always existed, or it spontaneously came into existence. There are no other options. What do you think happened? — pfirefry

A chicken has a very large evolutionary lineage, just as humans do. So not being a geneticist, I assume the first creature to look most like today's chicken came from an egg containing some small mutation that its parents did not have. So the chicken egg came first.

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview. — Photios

I don't find theists sad, they are just scared and they need a superhero who cares about them to comfort them when it gets dark. They don't question the existence of god because they need it to exist.

More than 3 dimensions exist in mathematics. Extra spacial dimensions could cause our 3D Universe, the multiverse, Mtheory (branes), The oscillating Universe, earlier Universes as past epochs of time, there are many possibilities that take us way past a cause that produced the beginning of our Universe as a 'singularity.' The Kalam cosmological argument and William Lane Craig serve no other purpose than attempting to make grown-ups believe in fables.

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview.

Nothing personal, just an observation. — Photios

I always find it sad (OK and a bit funny) to see theists contort themselves in an effort to prove the reality of a creator. Theism is an irrational worldview.

Nothing personal, just an observation.

I just discovered a very interesting solution to the infinite regress (of causes). Don't posit an uncaused cause; rather propose a self-caused cause. That way we can avoid the contradiction in the Kalam cosmological argument entailed by the premise: everything has a cause.

Causal laws, he claimed, "tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful." — T Clark

I wonder what successful science he had in mind, in which causal laws have been replaced? "What caused X?" seems to be a common form of research question in all the sciences. I'm struggling to think of an exception.

I wonder what successful science he had in mind, in which causal laws have been replaced? "What caused X?" seems to be a common form of research question in all the sciences. I'm struggling to think of an exception. — Cuthbert

I put the quote in just to show that the necessity of causation is not a foregone conclusion. Many philosophers and scientists dispute the need for it. I have my own reasons for thinking that causation is not a very useful concept in many situations, but I thought hearing that from Russell would be more convincing.

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview.
— Photios
I don't find theists sad, they are just scared and they need a superhero who cares about them to comfort them when it gets dark. They don't question the existence of god because they need it to exist. — universeness

I was struck by your response to Photios. It reminded me, with perhaps some irony, of things you wrote a week or so ago:

you need to be less provocative in the phrases you have used against others on this forum and arrogant text example you have just responded to me with ('hows that') — universeness

My only complaint with you, is you can be very insulting towards others. You come across as petulant at times. — universeness

T Clark has been very disrespectful towards others. — universeness

I think I have a long way to go before I can be compared to you, when it comes to insulting those who you don't agree with. Please keep trying to build your evidence. I will let the other members of the forum judge between us.

I think I have a long way to go before I can be compared to you, when it comes to insulting those who you don't agree with. Please keep trying to build your evidence. I will let the other members of the forum judge between us. — universeness

I will continue to point out the difference between your professed desire that people be treated with respect and your disrespectful actions. I think the other members of the forum have better things to do than "judge between us." Perhaps you should tattle to the moderators again.

I will continue to point out the difference between your professed desire that people be treated with respect and your disrespectful actions. I think the other members of the forum have better things to do than "judge between us." Perhaps you should tattle to the moderators again — T Clark

Please do. You are not a significant enough presence to me to return your action. I will always offer respect to those who dispense it to others. You remain currently low on the list. You will receive more respect when you learn the ability to dispense it. It's arrogant but not surprising, that you attempt to speak for other members. I will leave subterfuge with moderators in your no doubt, well-practiced, well-experienced hands.

I put the quote in just to show that the necessity of causation is not a foregone conclusion. Many philosophers and scientists dispute the need for it. — T Clark

That is interesting. But we know there are causes. Bridges collapse - engineers investigate - causes are identified and reported. The concept of cause is very troublesome to explain in general terms in the philosophy schoolroom. But jettisoning it seems premature. Without it, we cannot become engineers or understand what engineers have to say about the reason for bridges collapsing. We can banish 'cause' from the schoolroom for being awkward. We still need it in order to live our lives every day. It is a phenomenon that should be preserved in philosophy even when it gives us a headache.

That is interesting. But we know there are causes. Bridges collapse - engineers investigate - causes are identified and reported. — Cuthbert

Saying that causes exist is not the same as saying everything is caused.

The concept of cause is very troublesome to explain in general terms in the philosophy schoolroom. But jettisoning it seems premature. — Cuthbert

Bertrand Russell did in 1912, and he was not the first. To say that causes don't exist is open to question, but that doesn't mean it's premature.

We can banish 'cause' from the schoolroom for being awkward. We still need it in order to live our lives every day. It is a phenomenon that should be preserved in philosophy even when it gives us a headache. — Cuthbert

I use the word "because" all the time. If someone hits my car with theirs, I say "He caused the accident." As I said previously, I have no problem with the idea of cause in many situations. I also have no problem with dispensing with it when it gets in the way, as it always does when we talk about the first cause.

I don't think the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether causation is a good way of understanding things. I don't want to send it off on a tangent. It's an interesting question, but I it would take some homework on my part before I'm ready to have that discussion. As I noted, my purpose in responding to the OP was just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that everything has a cause.

For truth and math, maybe. Does 1 + 1 = 2 have a reason? Does it need a reason to always equal "2"?

For truth and math, maybe. Does 1 + 1 = 2 have a reason? Does it need a reason to always equal "2"? — Cobra

1+1=2 has a reason to me. I've found the equation useful in my daily endeavors to obtain resources. I obtain resources and consume things because it gives me pleasure for some reason. I may be compelled to do so, but the question of the degree of free will I have is a different subject. For this discussion about the reason for things in general, I'm not saying that a purpose or reason for things doesn't exist. A reason for things will always exist as long as there are thinking beings in the Universe that find things useful for their own reasons. But what about before there were thinking beings? Was there any purpose or reason then? I would say no. How could there be?

1+1=2 has a reason to me. I've found the equation useful in my daily endeavors to obtain resources. — Ree Zen

Here are some definitions of the word "reason."

• The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
• A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction.
• A fact or cause that explains why something exists or has occurred.

Unless you think that the universe somehow made 1+1=2 in order to be useful to you, your use of the word in this context is incorrect.

It is odd, to me, that so many theists - and I am a theist - believe that God created us and the universe we live in. Seems grotesquely implausible. More reasonable to believe that God exists and did not create us or the universe we live in. — Bartricks

Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes equated with YHWH), responsible for creating the material universe. — Wiki

But what about before there were thinking beings? Was there any purpose or reason then? I would say no. How could there be? — Ree Zen

Maybe the Universe possessed a latent urge to experience things, which is what gave rise to 'thinking beings'. If this were the case - not saying it is - then it's possible that thinking beings are still latently part of the Big Picture, fulfilling the latent urge that was felt long before there was anyone to actually feel it.

There are proofs for 1+1=2

https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html



As to the larger question, most systems require there to be either unanalyzable facts somewhere in the system, or an infinite regression. For example, in many forms of non-linguistic, non-trope based nominalism, the fact that sets of particulars appear to agree in given traits (e.g., being yellow, being triangular, etc.) is just a brute fact.

For trope theorists (those who believe shared attributes exist, but deny that universals do), this agreement is nicely handled with set theory, except that it creates some thorny issues for certain kinds of sets, which is besides the point here. But the appeal to set theory only covers why tropes are tropes and why particulars belong to given sets, not why particulars have tropes; this is just a brute fact.

For realists, who want to hold that universals exist as ontological entities (triangularity, the color yellow, courage, before, inside, etc.) there are two options, one that relies on brute fact and one that doesn't. When things share a universal, such as "that all triangles participate in triangularity," it appears that you are saying that they are sharing a relationship of exemplifying the universal. But if exemplification is another universal, then the exemplification of yellow leads to another universal to explain that, the exemplification of the exemplification of yellow, and so on, into infinite recursion. Some realists accept this recursion, others say that exemplification is a "nexus," a special sort of relationship not contingent on a universal. Nexuses are brute facts, unanalyzable.

If that sounds like ad hoc reasoning, you're not alone. However, there are not many good solutions to the problems of universals that do not rely on infinite recursion or assertions of unanalyzable facts. The same issue occurs throughout topics in metaphysics.

You do have rare systems that avoid both, but they do so by being circular, which depending on your point of view, may not be any better.

It's worth looking at them IMO because they're somewhat unique. With Hegel, you see specific instantiations generating universals, since mere sense certainty is the very base of cognition. However, this pure sense certainty has no definiteness, so it turns out to be pure abstraction, which is the same as nothing. This opposition is solved by sublation, with one concept succeeding over the other while incorporating the negation of itself into its new definition.

In this way, cognition progresses from the meaningless abstraction of pure certainty of sensation to increasing levels of knowledge, which of course requires universals to shape cognition. After all, looking at the world and seeing only indefinite lines and colors blending into one another with no sense of what anything is or being aware of any boundaries between things is a good sign you're having a massive stroke; cognition requires concepts, pattern recognition, etc. And indeed, we see this sort of conceptual recognition hardwired into animal sensory systems (e.g., visual systems specifically for processing lines).

So this sort of answer can seem appealing at first because it avoids apparent brute facts or endless regression. The problem is, Hegel's system might have been so robust because it is vacuous. It's Parmenides' "what is, is" spun through endless cycles of reification, until you reach an absolute knowledge of being, that seems effectively unreachable as it is often defined. But at least endless progression seems more appealing than endless regression.

I'm sure there could be rejections of personifying the universe this way, but I think it captures a basic point. Speaking of observing entities in the universe from outside an observation point represented by another such entity doesn't jive with what physics tells us about the universe. To have a description, the universe must generate entities that can receive information from other entities within itself.

If you think of physical entities as information, which physicists increasingly do due to the usefulness of the concept, this point is easier to get IMO. Systems only exchange information across their surfaces. Positing a God's eye view of physics, or a mote's eye view, doesn't work. If you're outside the universe you're looking at the surfaces of no two systems, so there is no information exchange. If you want to imagine a mote, somehow observing the laws of physics as "things in themselves," you're going to be violating those laws in your thought experiments.

For a quick example, the reason a Maxwell's Demon can't reduce entropy is because it has to receive information from the system it's organizing molocules in, which necissarily has to increase the entropy of its memory, or it has to generate waste heat to clear its memory. But this answer took a long time, and the concept of information entropy, to be thought through, because even trained physicists were so used to imaging non-physical motes existing in vacuum as valid vantage points for describing physics.

The information interaction is essential, making the observation point essential (and so it can't be magic). To borrow a thought experiment from Wheeler to illustrate, imagine a complete physics. A unified theory of quantum gravity, solutions to multibody problems, etc. Thousands of pages of beautiful equations, complete for describing the universe. If you have that, what do you have in your hand?

You have a bunch of paper, you're missing something crucial (in Wheeler's estimate, this was the information in fundemental particles). In the same sense, formulas envisioned as generating perspective from a magic mote are missing something, you can't analyze the surface of a system from nowhere. The observer problem isn't only an issue at QM scales.

In the literal sense, no

Maybe the Universe possessed a latent urge to experience things, which is what gave rise to 'thinking beings'. If this were the case - not saying it is - then it's possible that thinking beings are still latently part of the Big Picture, fulfilling the latent urge that was felt long before there was anyone to actually feel it. — Wayfarer

Some scientists opine that before the Big Bang the Universe was a single point smaller than the size of an atom. The smaller than an atom part is hard to fathom. But the Universe could have been a single point in space that expanded because it wanted to experience things, and not realizing that nothing else existed. If such an urge existed, then the Universe would have some level of consciousness early on. The Universe itself would be a thinking being. It seems far-fetched to lowly humans, but certainly possible.

If that were the case, then some level of Consciousness characterized by a purpose to experience things either appeared spontaneously or always existed. But if the Universe cannot be conscious unless components of it are organized in a certain way (such as the way atoms are organized in living organisms), then a purpose to the Universe did not exist until thinking beings emerged.

But that is a great point - is consciousness a fundamental property of the Universe? - the same as gravity, electromagnetic radiation, and the other laws of physics. I think it is.

Speaking of observing entities in the universe from outside an observation point represented by another such entity doesn't jive with what physics tells us about the universe — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100: