The fire emits the energy received by the water to boil, and the "boiling" effect is just the combination of the energy (caused by the fire) and the potential of water molecules to boil (not caused by the fire). And we know the energy received cannot be more than the energy emitted, due to the first law of thermodynamics.

"For that matter, the fire that brings the water to a boil does not have the property of being at 100C." — SophistiCat

Indeed. The fire has a property of being greater than 100C, which agrees with my point that the cause(s) may be greater or equal to the effect. — Samuel Lacrampe

Recall your own explanation:

'Greater' here means that the effect cannot possess a property that was not present in its cause(s). — Samuel Lacrampe

The fire underneath the boiling pot has neither the energy nor the temperature of the boiling water. It also does not possess the property of boiling. So while what you say here is correct, it does not mesh with your premise. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Go back to your premise and make it conform to these facts, on which we both agree.

The fire underneath the boiling pot has neither the energy nor the temperature of the boiling water. It also does not possess the property of boiling. — SophistiCat

I don't understand your position. Are you denying that there is energy transfer from the fire to the water? If yes, then what is the causal relationship between the two, if any? If no, then what is wrong with my premise? That energy is the common property between the cause and the effect.

(Insert witty comeback with a monopoly reference here)

We can just modify the premise slightly, to say "Everything that we can conceive must exist in their simple components". The argument then becomes:

- No effect can be greater than its cause(s). (I still defend this)
- A first cause exists. (assumed)
∴ The first cause contains all properties from all effects, and to an equal or greater degree.

- Everything that we can conceive must exist in their simple components. (Hume)
- All that exists must be an effect from the first cause, directly or indirectly. (by definition)
∴ The first cause is composed of all simple components of all that we can conceive.

∴ ∴ The first cause is that which nothing greater can be conceived. (drops mic)

I don't understand your position. Are you denying that there is energy transfer from the fire to the water? If yes, then what is the causal relationship between the two, if any? If no, then what is wrong with my premise? That energy is the common property between the cause and the effect. — Samuel Lacrampe

We agree on the facts, but the facts do not support your case. The energy transferred from fire to water is neither the energy of the cause (fire) nor the effect (boiling water). It is also distinct from the property of temperature, which the cause and the effect do not share, and the property of boiling, which only the effect possesses. Nothing here fits your premise of property conservation between cause and effect. Something is conserved, but it is not what you need for the premise to be true. The cause does not have all the properties of the effect: it does not have the energy of the effect, it does not have the temperature of the effect, it does not have the property of boiling.

Perhaps the problem here is that 'cause', 'effect' and 'property' have not been defined and thus it is not clear what it means for the cause to have all the properties of the effect. As I already mentioned, talk about causality is usually pretty loose. We say that fire underneath the pot causes the water in the pot to boil. Is fire the cause and boiling water the effect? Or should we rather be talking about events? Processes?

And then there are properties. The simplest definition of a property is anything that can be predicated of the thing in question. Thus "has the temperature of 100C" and "is boiling" are both properties of boiling water at normal conditions. But on this definition "does not have the temperature of 100C" and "is not boiling" can also be properties of something. It is clear then that for the cause to have all the properties of the effect, cause and effect will have to be identical. (Suppose that the cause has a property P not possessed by an effect. Then the effect has the property not-P, which the cause cannot possess. Thus the cause does not have all the properties of the effect.)

I just caused that sentence to exist. It has the property of being composed of words; I am not composed of words. — Srap Tasmaner

Still an incorrect causal relationship. The words have a physical property (say pixels on the screen), and a meaning. The meaning of the words is caused by you directly, and they are also a property of you because you can think (i.e. you meant what you wrote). You are not composed of pixels, but the direct cause of the pixels is the computer, which has the ability to create these pixels. — Samuel Lacrampe

Just to be absolutely clear, you're saying that
(1) I created the meaning of the sentence, but
(2) the computer created what's usually called the "inscription" of it, the physical instance,
and
(1a) I was able to create that sentence-meaning because I can think (thank you), and
(2a) the computer is able to create the physical inscription of the sentence.

It's not my intention to hold you to details of the formulations given here. (Also not my intention to get into details about the example itself, about what a sentence meaning is, etc.) Just want to be clear what you're saying.

You also make the additional claim, I think, that
(3) I did not create the inscription, because
(3a) I can't.

Is that the gist of it? Change anything you like in the wording.

That is the gist of it. "Inscription" is a better fit for the property too.
Indeed, you are not the direct cause of the inscription because if we remove the computer, then unless you write with blood, there can be no inscription. On the other hand, being the author of the sentence, you are the direct cause of the meaning the words are intended to hold.

Okay. So how do you see the connection between what I did and what the computer did? (Still just clarifying here, not arguing.)

Well we are getting into small details, but it goes something like this:
The computer has the potential to inscribe words, and remains passive until you give it some input. To put it simply, that potential is actualized by the transfer of energy from your hands to the computer. (Really, your motion only causes a closed circuit in the keyboard-to-word system, and the energy is mainly brought up by the power socket, but this is too specific to this example only.)

To say the same thing with a clearer example, let's use a typewriter instead of a computer. Words on the paper are caused by the ink and the motion of the typewriter. The ink is from the cartridge, and the motion gets its energy from you. The ink is the shared property between the words and the cartridge. The energy is the shared property between you and the typewriter.

Is there any place in this description for the word "cause"?

Sorry--I was unclear.

In the typewriter example, there's no causal connection between what I do and what the typewriter does, right?

I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. Let's go back to the principle:
"No effect can be greater than the sum of its causes (with an 's'). An effect can be have many causes, and thus only the properties in the causal relationship are found in both cause and effect. One of the only times a cause has all properties of the effect, is when the cause causes the effect into existence, because the effect has a single cause.

In the fire-to-water example, the fire did not cause the water into existence, and so the water may have several properties not found in the fire. The only causal relationship between the fire and water is the energy transfer. To break down the process into basic steps:
The energy from the fire (property 1) causes an energy increase in the water (property 1). Then the energy increase in the water (property 1), combined with the potential of water molecules to boil at 100C (property 2), causes the water to boil (property 2 actualized).

Another example where the cause causes the effect into existence: I am the product of my parents. All my genes are found in my parents. And if I never interacted with anyone or anything other than my parents, then I would never know anything more than what my parent know.

Sure there is. The effect of the word inscription on paper is caused not only by the typewriter but also by the writer using the typewriter. No writer = no inscription, because the typewriter does nothing on its own.

The motion of the typewriter keys onto the paper is caused by the motion of your hands. Or to generalize a bit more, there is energy transfer from you to the device.

Okay. I thought you had been saying energy transfer is not causal.

Energy transfer is causal. I may have miswrote something along the way. In fact, I think we can generalize that in the natural world, all the properties passed down from cause to effect always come down to either matter or energy, because things in the natural world fit into either categories of matter or energy. Therefore properties of causal relationships of natural things must fit either of these two categories as well.

So does your thesis of "conservation of properties," if we're calling it that, come down to a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics (with a nod to the second), once you've reduced everything to matter and energy? What does the argument look like stated in those terms?

You also mentioned genes, so there's an issue about information...

all the properties passed down from cause to effect always come down to either matter or energy — Samuel Lacrampe

...says materialism. The thing it leaves out is meaning and that turns out to be just as fundamental.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. What do the rings in a tree stump mean? They are the result of how the tree grows throughout the year and represent the age of the tree. Meaning and information are one and the same. Effects carry information, or meaning, about their causes.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

The rings in a tree stump mean something to an observer who is capable of interpreting it.

The reason meaning is fundamental is not because it is a constituent of objects, but because it is a constituent of experience. We attribute meaning, and explain and understand the world in terms of meaning. This is the case whether or not it exists in the sense that the objects of scientific analysis exist. In that sense it is epistemically prior to what we categorise as 'objectively real'.

So does your thesis of "conservation of properties," if we're calling it that, come down to a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics (with a nod to the second), once you've reduced everything to matter and energy? — Srap Tasmaner

I think that indeed we can reduce the thesis "conservation of property" to "conservation of mass and energy" when it comes to the natural or material world.

You also mentioned genes, so there's an issue about information... — Srap Tasmaner

Information or knowledge is neither matter or energy, because it can be shared without being lost by the emitter. Thus information fits the "conservation of property" thesis in the sense that the receiver may not receive more than what is emitted, but it does not follow the laws of thermodynamics because the information is not merely transferred, but duplicated.

What does the argument look like stated in those terms? — Srap Tasmaner

It changes my argument drastically if we only consider material things, but we can try it out for fun anyways:

- The first cause possesses all properties from all effects, and to an equal or greater degree.
- If all that exists is material (matter and energy), then all properties from all effects are material things.
∴ The first cause possessed all the matter and energy that currently exists in the world, to an equal or greater degree.

I say possessed (past tense), because due to the law of "conservation of mass and energy", the first cause no longer possesses the matter and energy that have been passed down to the effects.

I was referring only to natural or material things. Indeed, non-material things like meaning, information, knowledge, values, moral law, etc., do not necessarily fit into the categories of either matter or energy.

natural or material things. — Samuel Lacrampe

If natural = material then you're advocating materialism. If as you say, knowledge, meaning, information cannot be reduced to material things, then you're not. It's a pretty clear choice.

Whatever this is, it no longer looks much like a proof of the existence of God.

Interesting. I am not advocating materialism, but I also thought that naturalism and materialism were interchangeable words. What is the difference between the two?

Yeah. Materialism does not leave room for the existence of God. God is conventionally considered a spiritual, non-material being, because a material being has limitations, whereas God does not.

I think all this new argument proves is that the Big Bang (assuming it is the first cause) was very massive and powerful.

There is something quite natural about the approach you took. I think for a lot of people, the argument for the existence of God has just one step:
(1) All this must have come from somewhere.
(2) God.
Your attempt to combine the cosmological and ontological proofs fills in some steps. It might be worth figuring out why that made it harder to get from (1) to (2).

the natural world is all there is — Hugh Harris

Define 'natural world'

I am not advocating materialism, but I also thought that naturalism and materialism were interchangeable words. What is the difference between the two? — Samuel Lacrampe

'Naturalism' is a bit more soft-edged than materialism, although in practice they're often used interchangeably. But the referent of 'naturalism' is 'what is subject to study by the natural sciences', whereas materialism is the belief that only material objects and forces are real.

the Big Bang (assuming it is the first cause) was very massive and powerful. — Samuel Lacrampe

But why didn't it simply culminate in wreckage, 'greater entropy'? Why did it give rise to the exquisite order of nature? 'Just happened' doesn't strike me as any kind of hypothesis.

Of course, natural theology will say that the Big Bang was the work of the divine intelligence. In fact, the scientist who first came up with the idea (although he didn't call it the 'Big Bang') was a Catholic - and the Pope seized on the idea, because to him it seemed to validate 'creation ex nihilo', creation from nothing. The scientist was actually dismayed by this, as he wanted to keep religion and science separate, although I think the whole idea of the Universe emerging from a single, infinitesimal point in an instant, seems unavoidably religious to a lot of people.

And besides, science knows that it can't know what, if anything, was 'before' (not that there was a 'before') the Big Bang.

the natural world is all there is — Hugh Harris


Define 'natural world' — lambda

He just did. It's all there is.

Everything around you, you, everything beyond what you can see and that has a causal relation with everything that you do see and with yourself.

The rings in a tree stump mean something to an observer who is capable of interpreting it.

The reason meaning is fundamental is not because it is a constituent of objects, but because it is a constituent of experience. We attribute meaning, and explain and understand the world in terms of meaning. This is the case whether or not it exists in the sense that the objects of scientific analysis exist. In that sense it is epistemically prior to what we categorise as 'objectively real'. — Wayfarer

So, the rings wouldn't actually "mean" the age of the tree if an observer wasn't there to observe the rings?

It's funny then, that meaning becomes a process in which the observer never observed (the tree growing through each year, making each ring) only when the observer observes the effect (the multiple tree rings).