6 ms·

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

by wbhart 15y ago

gnaritas 15y ago
As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.
- wbhart 15y ago
  Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd. I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing". By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    You find it absurd, but then believe God came from nothing. I find that irrational. The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is. Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.
- wbhart 15y ago
  Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence. Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are. It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    > Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing. > You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much. > It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I did no such thing. > I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know. > Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.
    - wbhart 15y ago
      I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc. You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that? If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.) The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel). You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands. You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

by wbhart 15y ago

Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?

As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.

wbhart 15y ago
Do you believe the universe came from nothing? I find that absurd. I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing". By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  You find it absurd, but then believe God came from nothing. I find that irrational. The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is. Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.
wbhart 15y ago
Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence. Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are. It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  > Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing. > You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much. > It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I did no such thing. > I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know. > Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.
  - wbhart 15y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc. You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that? If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.) The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel). You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands. You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.