First cause is not a logical necessity.
Existence is either way paradoxical.
You can find a system where it's necessary and a system where it's not necessary.

We don't know what is the truth, maybe after death we'll know, or we might not know either, this life may all be a dream within a dream ad infinitum, waking up from one dream to the next...

I fully understand the argument and I stress out why it is a pseudo philosophical one. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm the author. No, you don't. I welcome critique, but when the author informs you that you do not understand the argument and you are making false assumptions, listen. This is not your time for your ego or sense of self-superiority. If you're here for that, leave. If you want to discuss the issues in a respectable manner, then seek to understand as you critique please.

-This is exactly what I pointed out in your first comment....you can not state that non existence is a state of being because its the lack of being. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not asserting non-existence is a state of being. If this is all about the semantics, I'm saying non-existence is a concept of reality, and we quantify that in relation to things that do exist.

"Space" is not assumed. Its is a quantifiable phenomenon in reality. — Nickolasgaspar

This is fine and is not in disagreement with what I'm saying.

Well god is a supernatural "first cause". But again for first cause to be a logical necessity, it needs the facts to make it necessary. As far as we can tell, its unnecessary since a state of being is the only state that it can "be". — Nickolasgaspar

What caused "state of being" to "be"? Why is there something instead of nothing? This does not avoid the logical point of the first cause. Again, if you are going to argue that a first cause is not necessary, please go to the argument I've linked and show why there.

-I asked you how can you prove these claims and you point me to a topic with the condition that I need to accept what you need to prove!!!!
Its not reasonable to demand from others to assume what you NEED to demonstrate objectively to be true. That's circular reasoning.... — Nickolasgaspar

Please read more carefully before reacting. I noted that the argument, the evidence you asked for, is in the other topic. This topic assumes you agree with the previous topic. If you do not, go there and prove it wrong. I'm not going to re-write the previous topic again. Again, I am not stating you need to accept that the previous topic is true, I'm stating that THIS topic assumes that you've accepted the previous topic as true.

And yes to both. If a cosmic field always existed, what caused it to always exist? The answer is, "It just is". It is a first cause, and needs no prior causality for the explanation of its existence.
— Philosophim
-The answer is We don't know and we can not assume or draw an conclusions from something we can not investigate. If something exists for ever, (a quantum noise with fluctuations) it doesn't demand a first cause. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes it does. I just noted that in the quote. If something exists forever, then it IS the first cause. That is because there is no prior causality that determines its existence. The rest of the argument I make in the OP follows from this.

Correct an eternal energetic cosmos needs no first cause to exist. It isn't a first cause...its the cause of existence in general. — Nickolasgaspar

No, it is the first cause. Taken entirely up the causal chain, we arrive at the point where we realize something has existed forever. There is no prior causality to this. Meaning the reason for its existence is not bound by prior laws, it just "is". If this confuses you, read the link to the first topic.

-" I am not claiming a first cause is existentially necessary, but logically necessary."
-Sure and I point out to you that our current scientific facts render that claim illogical since an eternal cosmos solves the problem created by the statement " non existence existing before existence" plus it is in agreement with what we measure in the cosmic background. — Nickolasgaspar

Incorrect. Current scientific fact does not negate my claim at all. You just haven't understood what a first cause was. Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility. I'm not stating its wrong, but you shouldn't state that its ascertained knowledge either. My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.

-I am not sure you understand what it means for a claim to be falsifiable. You need to present a way that we can test and objectively falsify your metaphysical claim on first cause — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, if you want to bring it up to that level that's fine. But then I'm going to ask you the same thing. How do you falsify the idea that the universe has been eternal? We can't very well travel back to the infinite past can we? In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality. We have a logical concept of it, but have never verified it exists.

-"Stop lecturing."
-I will answer ...No, I will try to see the huge problem in your reasoning and why an unnecessary artifacts is not logically necessary — Nickolasgaspar

I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand.

You are dodging the most important critique of your arguments and this is why your reply was so problematic. I hope this points help you understand the gaps in your reasoning and why this is NOT a philosophical topic. — Nickolasgaspar

No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better.

At this point, if you agree that a first cause is logically necessary, we can continue the conversation here. If you believe a first cause is not logically necessary, then please post in the linked topic that addresses all the proofs and arguments for that. At this point, I don't want to derail this topic any further. Feel free to quote my response here in that other topic as well.

First cause is not a logical necessity. — A Realist

If you believe that, please go here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 and point out why the OP there is wrong. This topic assumes agreement with the former topic.

But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. — Gnomon

Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence.

I'm the author. No, you don't. I welcome critique, but when the author informs you that you do not understand the argument and you are making false assumptions, listen. This is not your time for your ego or sense of self-superiority. If you're here for that, leave. If you want to discuss the issues in a respectable manner, then seek to understand as you critique please. — Philosophim

-The problem is that you don't understand the critique....
You just chose this trick to avoid challenging your misconceptions.
This discussion can never yield any philosophical conclusions because a. you don't have the data to make such metaphysical claims. b. you don't have a way to prove "god" possible so calling it plausible is nonsensical and a cheat c. Talking for non existence existing before existence is also nonsensical and d.Assume a first case in a cosmos when our current facts indicate no need for such a thing.

-"

I am not asserting non-existence is a state of being. If this is all about the semantics, I'm saying non-existence is a concept of reality, and we quantify that in relation to things that do exist. — Philosophim

"
-You didn't address my question (Again). Do you think that non existence was a state before the state of existence.....and if that was the case, how non existence can exist as a state????

This is fine and is not in disagreement with what I'm saying. — Philosophim

-Well you claimed that we assume the existence of space, while I pointed out to you that we can observe it and objectively quantify it....so how cam my objection be in agreement with your claim????
Of course we are in disagreement. You deny the existence or better you claim that we assume the existence of something that can be objectively quantified.!

What caused "state of being" to "be"? Why is there something instead of nothing? This does not avoid the logical point of the first cause. Again, if you are going to argue that a first cause is not necessary, please go to the argument I've linked and show why there. — Philosophim

1. nothing is existence is the default condition of the cosmos.
2. "why" questions are not meaningful questions when we try to address facts of Nature. Assuming purpose and intention in Nature is a teleological fallacy. You need to prove purpose/intention before searching for the goal behind those mental states.
3. Of course it does, when existence of the cosmos seems to be the default condition....how can any question about first cause be logical?
4. Your arguments do not help the case of first cause. first of all , as I said facts about the Cosmos render first cause irrelevant. Why is this so difficult for you? You can not ignore those facts and go on claiming that you have a logical argument! Reason is contingent to facts. You are reasonable only when your conclusions aren't in conflict with facts or founded on them.

Please read more carefully before reacting. I noted that the argument, the evidence you asked for, is in the other topic. This topic assumes you agree with the previous topic. If you do not, go there and prove it wrong. I'm not going to re-write the previous topic again. Again, I am not stating you need to accept that the previous topic is true, I'm stating that THIS topic assumes that you've accepted the previous topic as true. — Philosophim

-I am not sure you understand how the burden of proof works. If your argument was sound then you would point out the objective facts supportive of your premises. Its your burden to provide those facts not mine to prove your argument wrong. I can not accept your previous topic as true because you have to prove it to be true through objective evidence.
Have you done that?...or are we dealing with an other logically sound speculation?

Yes it does. I just noted that in the quote. If something exists forever, then it IS the first cause. That is because there is no prior causality that determines its existence. The rest of the argument I make in the OP follows from this. — Philosophim

First cause for what...for its existence? It can only be the medium where a first cause can act for our local representation of the universe to exist. Are you referring to that?
The cosmos seems to just exist without the need of a first cause. The cosmos on its own can not be the first cause. Fluctuations within its fabric can be identified as first cause, but this is not what you mean when you talk about non existence preexisting before existence...right?

No, it is the first cause. Taken entirely up the causal chain, we arrive at the point where we realize something has existed forever. There is no prior causality to this. Meaning the reason for its existence is not bound by prior laws, it just "is". If this confuses you, read the link to the first topic. — Philosophim

-So you use the term "first cause" as a vague concept even if within the cosmos there are specific events that we can be labeled as first cause. So you are not interested in finding out the actual first cause of our universes(or other universes) but you feel the need to stay closer to the religious or idealistic aspect of the term? How is this helpful, I wonder.
In science we see cosmos NOT as the first cause but as the medium that provides the conditions for a first cause to occur and the raw material for a process like our universe to be possible.

ncorrect. Current scientific fact does not negate my claim at all. You just haven't understood what a first cause was. Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility. I'm not stating its wrong, but you shouldn't state that its ascertained knowledge either. My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality. — Philosophim

-Of course it does. Science and logic render your claim nonsensical. There is no need of a first cause for the cosmos(existence) and non need to assume non existence as a state of whatever that is.

-"Also, an "Eternal cosmos" is not a deduced conclusion, just one possibility."
-Of course it ISN'T Deduced, science is a useful tool based on induction...not on tautologies.
The concept of cosmos is based on what we know to be possible(existence). Non existence is not known to be a possible of the world.

-"My point in the original topic, is that it doesn't matter if the universe is finite or infinite, a first cause is a logical necessity in the chain of causality.["
-you keep making this vague claim but you fail to define "first cause for what''? For existence? if yes then No , first cause is not needed for something that is eternal.
Calling that eternal thing "first cause" is sophistry and word game. I already explained this in detail
You just decide to call "first cause what already is in existence. that is pretty lame IMHO.

How do you falsify the idea that the universe has been eternal? We can't very well travel back to the infinite past can we? In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality. We have a logical concept of it, but have never verified it exists. — Philosophim

-You can not falsify it. I am only pointing out the available indications we have about a cosmic substrate and how it solves the impossibility of a non existent state of being.

-"In fact, infinity is something we've never encountered in reality."
-Correct its a concept, like non existence. The difference between those two concepts is that we have direct indications of a cosmic substrate when we have zero indications for non existence being a state before existence.!

-"I don't care if you point out the flaws in my argument. I encourage that. Remove the attitude is all. We must discuss without ego or self-superiority if we are to ascertain the truth. If ego is the focus, then the argument will be to determine that instead of the argument at hand."
- I will happily remove any attitude I have if you remove your sophistries and dishonest use of words.
I hope you listen to your suggestions and stop calling "first cause" something that seems already be in existence.
The fact is that we don't know whether something always existed and in what state, The issue I have with your "philosophy" is that you think you can arrive to logical conclusions when the idea of non existence itself is nonsensical.

-"No, I pointed out you misunderstood what the OP and its previous proof were, that there was no point in addressing it until you understood better."
-So you keep repeating this sophistry but you don't point out what exactly I didn't understand.
Do you think that non existence can ever be a state?
Do you believe that god can be a plausible explanation when you have never demonstrated that a first cause is necessary for the cosmos to exist or that god is possible?

-The problem is that you don't understand the critique....
You just chose this trick to avoid challenging your misconceptions. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, I've been nice, but you just seem interested in your own topic. As the author, I've informed you that you don't understand the topic. You are not entirely off base, but you're off base enough that you keep making straw men arguments. If you were honest, after I informed you that you did not understand, you would have read the other topic. Its obvious you did not. Further, I've asked you politely that if you didn't agree with the assessment that a first cause was logically necessary, to take your reply to that linked topic so we could discuss the evidence.

Your refusal to listen means this conversation is pointless. I'm not going to take the time and effort needed to reply again to someone who doesn't seem like they're listening, and seems more interested in their own voice than a conversation. If you want to have that conversation, then take what you've written and go to the other topic so this one is not derailed further. If not, we're done.

from: Is Philosophy Stupid?© 2013
byRichard Carrier, Ph.D.

"What is pseudo-philosophy?

Philosophy that relies:
1. on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. on factually false or undemonstrated premises.
3. isn't corrected when exposed.


All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy."

So, you were exposed and you are not willing to correct your arguments or your vague language! I understand that acknowledging your mistakes in public is very difficult and I don't expect anything more than "I am the author and you don't understand" type of come backs. I only hope that by standards will see the problems in your reasoning and puzzle the pieces in my critique.
Take care and good luck to you and your worldview.

So, you were exposed and you are not willing to correct your arguments or your vague language! I understand that acknowledging your mistakes in public is very difficult and I don't expect anything more than "I am the author and you don't understand" type of come backs. — Nickolasgaspar

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man

All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

when I've clearly told you I don't claim any supernaturalism in the OP.

I didn't expect anything more. Take care and good luck as well.

a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.

This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.

b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.

If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim

A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause.

Velocity is relative (object A has a velocity relative to object B), not absolute - so there is nothing for a first cause object to have a velocity relative to.

I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system.

Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence. — Philosophim

I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. :joke:

Starting Philosophic Problem :
One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy is related with the most meaningful philosophic notions, that is, with the categories of "being" and "non-being".
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Onto/OntoSolo.htm

BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
* Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

G*D :
* An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, REASON, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
* I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man — Philosophim

-First of all I don't strawman your position, just because you put the words differently or say the same thing with different words that doesn't make my summation of your claims a strawman.
I took the time to address every single paragraph of your opening statement for this thread.
Your "philosophy" was really problematic and the explanations you offered as a response to my critique were even worse.
So I apologize but I am not going to invest my time dismantling an other topic when I already know the average quality of the arguments I will find in there...at least not today

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man
"All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy." — Nickolasgaspar — Philosophim

When our calm rational conversations become frictional, it's usually due to some prejudicial unstated presumption. And I think you have hit upon one here. The wet-blanket dismissive label, "Pseudo-philosophy", eliminates a whole universe of possible topics for rational discourse. Hence, channeling the dialogue into a narrow canyon for ambush by the forces of "true-philosophy". Fortunately, you didn't take the bait, to follow the feint. :cool:

Before going to sleep logged in again shortly to give you the thump! :up:

The argument for a God must be done through evidence. — Philosophim

An empiricist will say that. A rationalist philosopher might argue that it’s a matter of abductive inference - which means reasoning from effect to cause. They might point to something like the "anthropic cosmological principle", and argue that, even though it seemed likely that the Universe should emerge from the Big Bang into a state of chaos, it actually emerged in just such a way as to enable the formation of stars, complex matter, and then living beings who can reflect on all of the above. Of course many philosophers will disagree, but the point is that the argument is not based on evidence as such but on an interpretation of the meaning of existence.

there is nothing different about a God from any other existence — Philosophim

That is not supported by, or informed by, philosophical theology. 'God' is not simply one factor in a causal chain; there's an ontological distinction between God and nature (hence, it might be a form of dualism.) The major distinction made in the traditional arguments is between 'contingent' and 'necessary' being. The way you present your argument treats God as simply the first in a series of events - presumably just another contigent being. But if God is uncaused, then such a being is not contingent and not dependent on anything. So there's an ontological distinction here - a distinction in kind - which I don't think your OP is reflecting.

Of course there are a great many philosophical conundrums and difficulties in these arguments but then it is a discussion of the origin of the Universe, so there's no reason to think it should be something easy to fathom. But I suggest finding a proper presentation of the cosmological argument to get a better handle on what 'necessary being' actually means.

Yes. A first physical cause is logically necessary. This first cause, leading to the emergence of thermodynamic time, can't be itself a part of the irreversible chain of cause and effect. This non-thermodynamic primordial time-symmetric causal mechanism itself can be immersed in a wider context of thermodynamic principles, signaling when time can be kick-started.

A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause. — Relativist

Well, there is possibly more than one first cause. A first cause means the first cause in a chain of causality. It is quite possible that first causes can pop into existence even if other chains of causality exist. But, if there was nothing at one time, and then something appeared, the lack of anything else wouldn't negate that it appeared. There would of course be no outside observer watching for the first appearance of something, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it still makes a sound.

I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system. — Relativist

I'm actually not positing what first causes are. I'm sure there are a lot of opinions on what are first causes, but proving one is difficult. Not that we shouldn't stop trying!

Nice posts Gnomon! I appreciate the citations and nice presentation. :smile:

They might point to something like the "anthropic cosmological principle", and argue that, even though it seemed likely that the Universe should emerge from the Big Bang into a state of chaos, it actually emerged in just such a way as to enable the formation of stars, complex matter, and then living beings who can reflect on all of the above. — Wayfarer

Hello Wayfarer, good to hear from you as always! So, the whole point in realizing a first cause is logically necessary, is realizing there is no limitations as to what a first cause can be. We may look at the universe and believe, "Its unlikely this could happen by chance," but there's actually nothing to back that.

Probability and likelihood are based on the prior rules of causality that lead to outcomes we are aware of. We think, "Well inorganic matter doesn't suddenly organize itself into an engine, only intelligence can do that." And we're correct when prior causality is involved. But when something has no prior causality, anything can happen. Its why we readily accept that a God, possibly the most complex and powerful thing a human can imagine, was not designed, but was a first cause.

The problem is, this can also be applied to anything else. We cannot say it is unlikely that a universe formed from particles simply appearing, because there is no prior causality that would make it more, or less likely to occur.

So is a God possible. Logically, 100%. But so is anything else you can imagine that was the start of the universe. As such, a God is not logically necessary to explain the universe's origins, it is one of an infinite imagined possibilities of what could be. Despite the unlimited potential of first causes, ultimately, what actually happened are the first causes within our universe today. Those can only be gleaned by going up the chains of causality to find them.

Thus, the potential is only there when we do not know what those first causes are. But the reality of what those first causes are can only be gleaned by finding evidence.

But if God is uncaused, then such a being is not contingent and not dependent on anything. So there's an ontological distinction here - a distinction in kind - which I don't think your OP is reflecting. — Wayfarer

Perhaps my OP was written poorly then. My point is that any first cause is not contingent or dependent on anything. Meaning if I do not know the origin of the universe, but know there was a first cause, all imagined and unimagined possibilities are equally as likely. A God, not a God, some explosions, a calm entrance, eternal existence, etc. None or contingent or dependent on any prior causality (thus rules or restrictions), and so any were possible.

We may look at the universe and believe, "Its unlikely this could happen by chance," but there's actually nothing to back that. — Philosophim

The 'anthropic principle' is quite well established, actually. It comprises observations about the fact that there are a small number of constants which, had they been different by a very small degree, would have prevented the formation of matter, stars, and living organisms. This line of reasoning goes back to the astronomer Fred Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance (which you can read about here) later formalised in a paper by Brandon Carter. (There's a current thread on 'fine tuning', going back a few years but recently active again.)

The rest of your response, really, is just that 'anything is possible' - which is not actually an argument. And unless you have some idea what you're looking for, then there's no way to look for or assess evidence or what should be regarded as evidence.

A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 After much debate, I am satisfied that the argument successfully stands — Philosophim

That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious.

The rest of your response, really, is just that 'anything is possible' - which is not actually an argument. — Wayfarer

In almost any other case, you would be right. The difference here is that its a logical conclusion. Anything was possible is not the argument, its the end result.

And unless you have some idea what you're looking for, then there's no way to look for or assess evidence or what should be regarded as evidence. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious. — jgill

Thank you. A cautious mind is a careful mind. It is only a logical argument, and not an evidenced argument. Still, the origin of the universe is something likely outside of evidence, and logic may be all that we ever have.

A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality. — Philosophim

Is instantiation into existence instantaneous, or does the process necessitate elapsing of time?

A first cause is an uncaused existence, that then enters into causality.
— Philosophim

Is instantiation into existence instantaneous, or does the process necessitate elapsing of time? — ucarr

Hi ucarr, instantiation of a first cause is the moment of inception.