Uncaused Cause

[realunoriginal]

1) There is causation within the universe.

Really? Where?

2) Therefore, it is hypothesized that the universe itself was caused.

Who hypothesizes this...except Christians and Western Dogmatists?

3) This "1st" cause being an undefined value called "god".

That is how the hypothesis goes, yes...

4) This 1st cause must have a cause itself; otherwise it breaks the process of causation by being an uncaused cause.

Why must the First Cause have a cause-itself...???

Why must there be a Reason for Everything?

5) If "god" has a cause, it is not the 1st cause,

This is false according to your definitions.

You said "god" is the First Cause. So why is "god" all of a sudden "not the 1st cause"? What changed?

and the process of causation is infinite.

How do you know?

If "god" is uncaused then causation is not an absolute.

Why not?

6) If causation is not an absolute, the universe does not require a cause, let alone a "1st" cause.

And you have a reason for believing this logic...?

7) Therefore I assert that the concept of "god" cancels itself out.

You should build stronger premises then...

Well, what say you?

I say most of your premises are too weak to hold an Atheistic perspective.

To be an uncaused cause, a cause must first be such that it does not conform to physical necessity - physics.

Who says that Causation conforms to physical necessity...Newton perhaps???

First you need to definitively-answer what Causality-itself is.

But what is it, then? Certainly not a cause: causation springs from an observation of physics, therefore the exception to this is not physics.

Yes, you are correct.

Causality is not a Cause. And it cannot be explained through itself. But you are also wrong.

Causation does not "spring from an observation of physics". That is too convoluted. Observation is more pure.

God must be supernatural

How?

and capable of acting outside what is possible. God must also be "unknowable" in order to cover this.

You cannot arrive at these conclusions through the premises as you have presented them.

God is, essentially, the gap-filler. Humans do not understand the reason that the universe exists, or how it came about. They are indeed stupid enough to assume that there is even a "reason", a human rationalisation of reality; a rationalisation which it is assumed existed before humans or the universe itself. Thus, because of the assumption that there is a purpose (end goal, plan, motivation for creation), it follows that there is an assumption of cause.

That is incorrect.

An assumption of one is no indication for the assumption of another. Causality is an explanation of the fact/belief.

In order to explain the assumption that the universe -the effect- is subject to causation (a process that occurs within the universe itself) "god" -the cause- is invented.

I find this unacceptable.

So do I but you cannot properly-attack Western, Christian belief on the grounds that you have laid out.

[Wootah]

Are you stupid?

I jsut want to say that RU was nice to you ....

You didn't understand these grounds, so have a second try.

On behalf of the PNow community I would like to say nice knowing you.

[Banno]

Now, there is a surprise. There is a strong similarity between the argument espoused in the OP and the argument for the Great Goat.

Goats eat everything

But an infinite chain of goats eating goats is ruled out (for unspecified reasons)

Therefor there must be a goat which is not eaten by any other goat, yet which eats. And which must therefore be eaten by itself: the self-eating eater.

Goats rule!

[realunoriginal]

I wonder how ignorant your mind must be to believe in 'causes' which do not exist outside of human abstraction & fabrication.

Who hypothesizes this...except Christians and Western Dogmatists?

Theists.

Wrong.

You are speaking about Western Duality and Christianity. Cut the bullshit.

Why must the First Cause have a cause-itself...???

Why must there be a Reason for Everything?

Did you read what you quoted?

Or are you just too used to reading the fantasies of theists desperately trying to persuade themselves that jehovah exists and assumed I was doing the same?

Is it your argument or not that First Cause "must have a cause itself"???

These are your fucking premises, clown. Why "must" First Cause have a cause? Answer the fucking question.

Try to enter into the mind of a theist, or even a deist, for just a moment. It would go something like this:

There is the universe. I'm living in it. It's there, right? How did it come to be here? What caused it?
I know! God must have caused it!
But, what caused god?
No, we can't have that. If god is only one in a long string of causes, then his value is very little indeed.
No. Because god must be the highest, most perfect thing conceivable.
Thus, god must be the 1st cause.
But how will that work?
God has to be absolute, beyond reality, above it, outside it; the originator and creator of all things, including causation (do you see how this notion contradicts itself? A "creator" of causation?).
Therefore he is not subject to it and can be the impossible; a 1st cause.

You can label First Cause whatever you want to.

First Cause, God, Origin, Source, Birth, Beginning, Creation, etc.

No matter what you label the term, your reasoning is nothing more than *SPECULATIVE*.

You have no more rationale to disprove Causality-itself than Christians do to otherwise prove it.

Therefore there is one thing that is not subject to causation.

But you are wrong in the first place.

Causality is Man-made; it exists nowhere in Nature. So not even Theists can make sense of God through Causality.

If we are assuming there is causation, as the central premise for formulating a god theory -as well as understanding the mind of a theist- then the cause of the universe too must have a cause or break this premise, which is that all things need a cause in order to exist.

Causality has no necessary relation to Existentialism so you are wrong about that one.

But you are correct to say the logic of Causality can presume no necessary beginning or end.

1. Cause, 2. Effect, 3. Cause, 4. Effect

...cause<>effect<>cause<>effect...

The system can be open or closed depending on its purpose for explanation.

Either the universe is a closed system of infinite causes and effects, in that it does not have a beginning or end, or causation is not an absolute and the cause for which the universe is an effect does not exist.

Either an infinity of causes or no causes.

...or Causation is a human fabrication and its limitations are premised around the human brain/mind.

This is false according to your definitions.

You said "god" is the First Cause. So why is "god" all of a sudden "not the 1st cause"? What changed?

My definitions were not created to defend the notion of a god.

My definitions are designed to show how self-defeating the notion of god is in itself.

You cannot defeat the Theistic argument based on a moot point...do you understand???

If god is the first cause, then what does that mean for causation?

It means that Causation is premised by spiritual explanations and mythos, to account for human ignorance.

Does not the existence of an uncaused cause, an effect without a cause, imply that causation itself is not, in fact, an absolute necessity?

First of all, there is no reason to believe in a Cause or Uncaused-cause without a case for either.

Without context, you are wrong about Absolute Necessity. All examples of causality are based on premises:

I hit the cue-ball with my pool stick. The cue-ball strikes the 8-ball. The 8-ball drops into the corner pocket.

Context...Causation is nothing without Context.

Does not the postulation of a god serve as an explanation as to the cause of which the universe is the effect?

Yes.

The Context is religious and spiritual. How can the end of the Entire Universe not be a spiritual limitation???

But if there is a chain of causation which is not infinite does this not then imply that the concept of causation itself is undermined?

What does it matter if one chain of events are limited or unlimited in cause?

Neither outcome, limited or unlimited, are going to affect the nature of Causality, will it???

If the Universe has a First Cause, and that First Cause actually-is "God", then all this means is the Universe-itself is closed and not open.

So, if there is a cause that has no cause, why then must we apply this only to god?

Ask a Religious Fundamentalist or Extremist.

Did the universe have a cause?

Who knows. Are not causes-themselves built on human postulation and limitation???

How do you know?

Are you stupid?

Are you queer?

Causation = .....cause>effect>cause>effect .... etc.

Or is there an exception to causation that you know about? A 1st cause, a prime mover to which everything else is subjected ..

God, perhaps ....?

There are exceptions to every rule. It is about defining those exceptions in the best possible way.

Why not?

Because god is included in the process of causation as a 1st cause. But by being uncaused, god breaks the process of causation as I have defined it above.

That is correct if "God" is an accurate explanation for First Cause...is it?

Or is "God" a Man-made fabrication of Western Thought and Christianity, a system of institutionalized fairy tales?

And you have a reason for believing this logic...?

Why must there be a reason for everything?

There need not be a reason for everything; I want to know your reasoning.

You should build stronger premises then...

You should read before you type.

You should pay attention before you respond.

I say most of your premises are too weak to hold an Atheistic perspective.

I say you don't understand any of my premises. Or that I failed to explain them adequately.

Time will tell what I understand and do not. It seems to me that I perfectly-understand your arguments.

You are searching for an Atheistic disproof of the Theistic argument. You cannot explain it without disproving Causality.

Who says that Causation conforms to physical necessity...Newton perhaps???

First you need to definitively-answer what Causality-itself is.

See-above.

You never made the case...

Where is Causation a physical necessity???

Yes, you are correct.

Causality is not a Cause. And it cannot be explained through itself.

Yes, indeed. Because causality is unknowable, right?

Causation is tied into human knowledge. And to undo Causality you have to dig deep into human knowledge.

If you do then you will find that Causation, whether limited or unlimited, are both human abstractions and fabrications.

So there are degrees of Causality that people can know, or not, based on how far they are willing to dig around for it.

Do you still think I'm a theist?

Everybody is a Theist.

Even Atheists are A-theists.

But you are also wrong.

No, I'm not.

You are if you present your case as an attack against Christian beliefs. Your premises cannot stand at this rate.

God must be supernatural

How?

To break causation in order to be the 1st uncaused cause, god needs to be supernatural, ie "special".

This is incorrect.

Because his "special" nature is what you are attributing to "Him". But "He" did not break the cycle of Cause. You did.

It was your human limitation that broke the infinite cycle of Cause and said...

"this is god"

"god is 1st cause"

"god is supernatural"

Those are all human fabrications. You can assume just about any belief you desire concerning First Cause.

You cannot arrive at these conclusions through the premises as you have presented them.

Just because you said so, right?

Because if you argued those premises then they could be defeated on the grounds of Causality and human limitation.

So do I but you cannot properly-attack Western, Christian belief on the grounds that you have laid out.

You didn't understand these grounds, so have a second try.

And what have I not understood...?

[Banno]

RU, for unspecified reasons, as I said in the post you selectively quoted. I have argued in favor of an infinite chain of goats elsewhere.

[realunoriginal]

@realunoriginal:

I wonder how ignorant your mind must be to believe in 'causes' which do not exist outside of human abstraction & fabrication.

I know nothing that exists outside my own interpretation of reality.

Do you? Enlighten me.

I only-know of subjective interpretations, based on varying degrees of intellects.

If another Man is as intelligent as I am then I will ask him his opinion on matters of importance.

Philosophy, and Truth, are both based on Trust.

Wrong.

You are speaking about Western Duality and Christianity. Cut the bullshit.

Christians are the only people, anywhere, ever, to possess a creation myth?

At the least you should be allowing for Islam and Judaism.

I seem to remember "primal chaos" being the first cause in many pagan/eastern religions ...

The details are irrelevant, merely that there is a 1st cause ...

I mean, at the very least, you seem to predominantly-be speaking of Causality in terms of Christian Theism, are you not???

Eastern Philosophy, and Mysticism, as I understand them, are not Dualists like Westerners are...they naturally-are Monists.

Is it your argument or not that First Cause "must have a cause itself"???

These are your fucking premises, clown. Why "must" First Cause have a cause? Answer the fucking question.

4) This 1st cause must have a cause itself; otherwise it breaks the process of causation by being an uncaused cause.

You are presuming Causation-itself is unlimited. This necessarily-is not true. Causation may be either limited or unlimited.

The process in the minds of those who formulate such myths begins with an observation of causation. This observation is eventually extended to encompass the universe as a whole in search for the universes cause.
God is then invented as this cause.
In order to prevent it having its own cause this god is postulated as being uncaused; as this would -presumably- devalue it in the minds of the humans who created it, since this god would not then be 1st and ultimate etc.

From observation of causation, a theory is postulated to explain the universes existence in a causative manner by inventing something that does not conform to this theory of causation.

But you are (falsely)-presuming the "theory of causation" is Unlimited...as opposed to Limited.

Does not a human life have a definitive Beginning and End??? ~or not?

The 1st cause must not have a cause; that is irrelevant. But the reason for its hypothesis -a causative perspective on reality- demands that it be a cause; further, an uncaused cause which contradicts the basis of its own premise.

It is the absolute nature of a god again contradicting itself.

You didn't understand me.

I understand you.

I just believe you do not understand Causality as a human fabrication. *YOU* are assigning the value to First Cause!

Anyone who speaks about the ... origin/beginning ... of the universe is speaking from a wholly ignorant position, I agree.

However, that is not my concern. I am attempting to point out the contradiction that an uncaused cause poses in a causative process or system such as a divine theory of creation.

Then link together Human Ignorance with Contradiction of First Cause and your problem will be solved.

But you are wrong in the first place.

Causality is Man-made; it exists nowhere in Nature. So not even Theists can make sense of God through Causality.

Causality only makes sense in an infinite closed system without anything like first causes or parallel universes or hand-waving crap existing outside or apart from the universe which serve as explanations which really are no explanations at all.

I disagree with that. Causality makes sense whether limited or not: Cause >> Effect >> Cause >> Effect.

The loop can be endless or not...it merely-is a simplistic form of human logic: presupposition.

Causality has no necessary relation to Existentialism so you are wrong about that one.

Oh, really?
If you keep saying that, someday I'll start to believe you ....

But my consciousness is the effect of which my body is the cause. My body is the effect of which the biochemical reaction of particulate matter is the cause.

Beyond that is the realm of my ignorance. But my existence is due to cause and effect.

So you say...

But *IF* in-fact Causality is Man-made then your "existence" is owed to a human (mental) fabrication. That is false.

But you are correct to say the logic of Causality can presume no necessary beginning or end.

1. Cause, 2. Effect, 3. Cause, 4. Effect

...cause<>effect<>cause<>effect...

The system can be open or closed depending on its purpose for explanation.

The best way to test a system is not to close it but to extend it to its fullest limit; encompassment of everything.

In which case the closed system of causation would need to be infinite, or contradict itself if it is not.

But you are wrong there!

How does a closed system of Causality necessarily-contradict anything *UNLESS* you presume infinite causality???

...or Causation is a human fabrication and its limitations are premised around the human brain/mind.

Perhaps. It is only an observation after all.
This is not, however, my primary concern.

Then you are going to keep confusing your notions of 'open' or 'closed' causal systems.

Neither system is necessitated by itself if indeed Causality is the result of human fabrications (of thought).

You cannot defeat the Theistic argument based on a moot point...do you understand???

Do you understand yet?

Yes.

It means that Causation is premised by spiritual explanations and mythos, to account for human ignorance.

No it means that causation is undermined by the inclusion of an uncaused cause.

To disprove a premise, view it as an absolute.

But you have no case for that!

Why must *YOU* include the uncaused-cause???

Why must *YOU* disagree that "God" is the beginning or end of the Universe???

Is not Human Ignorance the beginning and end of the known Universe???

Why must anybody attach a label to this other than "ignorance"???

First of all, there is no reason to believe in a Cause or Uncaused-cause without a case for either.

The case is the observation of such activity within the universe and then the application of this observation upon the universe itself in search of a "cause" for the universe.

Empirical Causality still does not presuppose an open system of sequences, let alone any kind of First Cause.

If Empiricism is your guide then you have no reason to believe the Universe-itself is infinite in nature, or finite.

All the Empiricist knows is whether his predictions are probably-true or not, and to what degree.

Without context, you are wrong about Absolute Necessity. All examples of causality are based on premises:

I hit the cue-ball with my pool stick. The cue-ball strikes the 8-ball. The 8-ball drops into the corner pocket.

Context...Causation is nothing without Context.

In this case, the context is the universe.

And how does a Man go about contextualizing the Entire Universe...??????

So, either there is something uncaused which is above, beyond outside the universe ("god" to a theist), a thing for which there is no evidence, or the universe is an infinite closed system of causation.
Or, causation is not required and the universe popped into existence one day without instigation.

First of all...how is your system of Causality distinct from that of human cognition?

I mean think about the "Universe" for a second. Why does it have a "cause" anymore than you-yourself have a "cause"?

I am the "cause" of my parents fucking. Is it anything more complicated than that?

So why must the "cause" of the Universe be anymore complicated?

Wherever you go to that end is postulation: God fucked Nature. It does not make sense but does it need to?

Neither my case or that of the Universe definitively-prove to me what a "cause" actually-is.

All they signify is that events occur(red) which lead or led to *MY* conscious existence.

Yes.

The Context is religious and spiritual. How can the end of the Entire Universe not be a spiritual limitation???

Because it is a purely material end to a purely material existence?

Spiritual is another word for the supernatural; that which cannot be proved and exists only within human imagination.

There is no difference between Spiritual and Material until you reach the actual end of the Universe; what is there???

What does it matter if one chain of events are limited or unlimited in cause?

Neither outcome, limited or unlimited, are going to affect the nature of Causality, will it???

If the Universe has a First Cause, and that First Cause actually-is "God", then all this means is the Universe-itself is closed and not open.

Again, if there is an effect without a cause, it breaks the string of causation. Thus, if there is a 1st cause, then causation is not an absolute and can be gotten around.

You are correct.

If the universe has a 1st cause, "god", then it is not closed in that it is "open" to affect from outside influences. It was created, or caused, by something else.
If it is closed then it is sufficient to itself in its own process of infinite causation.

That necessarily-is not true though...even *IF* "God" created the Universe and it is/was closed then you have no Reason to state that there is an ulterior cause than "God" unless you-yourself can prove the explanation for your thesis.

Does this make sense...?

If "God" or First Cause exist...and the Universe is closed...then that *STILL* does not mean there is another explanation.

The only means to disprove such a function or form of thought would be to transcend the "God" or First Cause concept.

If causation is not an absolute, due to the existence of an uncaused cause, why then must this uncaused cause not be the universe itself? Why is there a vague, undefined agent in the form of god to act as a second party when a second party is not needed as causality has just been disproved?
Essentially it is causa sui. Something being the cause of itself.

This is not sufficient.

Why is that not sufficient??? You just demonstrated the necessary logic.

Just because a proof for something exists does not mean that the proof-itself will suffice any particular person.

God, First Cause, whatever can be proven or disproved, one way or the other. Neither can include sufficient reasoning.

Who knows. Are not causes-themselves built on human postulation and limitation???

Unknowability, right?

Do you accept that there is knowledge to which you cannot gain access?
If it is knowledge then it can be known. And will be known.

Everything is knowable; Nothing is impossible.

The only things that prevent human knowledge from expanding past its bounds are its bodily limitations.

Think about the power of Individuals when they are forced to work together for common causes.

Humans are capable of defying all expectations.

Are you queer?

Are you projecting?

Or just dick-waving?

Are you finished with rhetorical questions?

Or is this your idea of a fun time?

There are exceptions to every rule. It is about defining those exceptions in the best possible way.

"God", it would appear, is the exception ...

To Christians, yes He is. Christians bow, bend, and kneel to God.

That is correct if "God" is an accurate explanation for First Cause...is it?

Or is "God" a Man-made fabrication of Western Thought and Christianity, a system of institutionalized fairy tales?

"God" is whatever the person speaking wants it to be, in my experience.

The concept in itself is meaningless.

That depends on how vague and over-generalized the "God" concept is.

I see commonalities: God is the Ideal, Perfect Man, the Most Powerful & Absolute Tyrant.

Time will tell what I understand and do not. It seems to me that I perfectly-understand your arguments.

You are searching for an Atheistic disproof of the Theistic argument. You cannot explain it without disproving Causality.

What I am doing is pointing out the contradictory nature of a 1st cause within a causative process.

There is no 1st cause in a causative process.

If there is a 1st cause there is no causative process.

That is wrong though.

You need to consider whether a Causal-chain is Limited or Unlimited. Limited chains have First Causes.

This "limitation" can be compared to "human limitation", or, "human ignorance".

You never made the case...

Where is Causation a physical necessity???

The universe?

That would depend on your philosophical mindset: Materialism.

Causation is tied into human knowledge. And to undo Causality you have to dig deep into human knowledge.

If you do then you will find that Causation, whether limited or unlimited, are both human abstractions and fabrications.

So there are degrees of Causality that people can know, or not, based on how far they are willing to dig around for it.

One cannot interpret reality without being limited by ones own interpretation of reality.

That is true.

Everybody is a Theist.

Even Atheists are A-theists.

Wow.

What

You are if you present your case as an attack against Christian beliefs. Your premises cannot stand at this rate.

I don't think I even mentioned christians in the OP ....

I have never heard Causality being a problem to religious beliefs expect in Christianity...because of Dualism.

Because if you argued those premises then they could be defeated on the grounds of Causality and human limitation.

Indeed.

A 1st cause contradicts causality and causality is a human observation of the universe.

You have got to quit saying First Cause contradicts Causality, because it does not!

That only-depends on whether the chain of causes are Limited or Unlimited.

Incidentally, I was away from ILP when you and Satyr got banned. What happened, exactly?

Satyr increased his assaults against the members of the ILP forum, questioning and calling into doubt their religious-fundamental beliefs, their delusional contradictions of Equality between the Sexes, and Races. He eventually-was confined and censored to the Rant House sub-forum. And then, he completely-was banned for challenging the philosophical authority of the moderators. I agreed with his logic. The ILP moderators are intellectual retards when it comes to philosophy. They only-include what promotes their own self-flattery and social pretenses.

As for me, I played Devils Advocate for awhile and argued on behalf of Jean the Pedophile to see how intelligent the ILP community was. It turns out nobody could defeat my contentions arguing for pedophilia which turned many people against me. Then my essays on Human Sexuality were censored and deleted. I was moved to the Rant House sub-forum. And finally-speaking, I suggested that people like ladyjane were too stupid to live based on how any retard can join ILP and spout stupid shit without repercussions. Stupidity is protected...and I was banned. I believe one of the major causes/reasons for my ban had to do with my presenting the Sex-as-Rape argument, which I intentionally-skewed in order so that anybody could point out its flawed logic. Yet, to my surprise, nobody argued against me based on any clear rationale, even against a clearly-flawed argument. After that, I had no faith that ILP could provide me with any reasonable arguments against my greater philosophical propositions.

The formal reason I was given was: "I am no longer in the grace of the Moderators."

I was not banned for breaking rules. I was banned because my words were dangerous. Satyr once made a great point that although Aidan McLaren went around screaming how he wanted to kill everybody on ILP, that he was not banned because his attitude of weakness was akin to the ILP staff and community. I agree with that and nothing is more fitting than that explanation. It serves me as a remind to how social groups work and interact. ILP is a failed, Liberal philosophy community full of self-gratifying masturbation and feel-good-nonsense. Any real challenge, or any real threat to their Liberal ideologies must be stained, smeared, and cast into exile. And so begins the Censorship of Philosophy in the 21st Century.

The thing is, words have meaning, and they are powerful.

If this were false then there would never be a need to ban anybody from any kind of forum.

Joker, also, seems to have disappeared. What happened to him?

Joker left ILP off & on over time. After Satyr was banned, he went to Jokers Dissident Philosophy Forum.

After some time, Satyr and Joker both left that website while Jean the Child Molester created his own Dissident Philosophy Forum as a clone. Jean left because he could not emotionally-manipulate his way into Administrative powers of the original dissident website. Since then, the original dissident website has died off except for a couple posters while Jean has semi-successfully-created his own perverted version of a "Philosophy" website. But Jean is known for creating multiple identities, stealing the identities from others, and even posing as other people under their own accounts. His version of "Free Speech" is defined by whatever helps him to promote social acceptability for pedophilia and rape of girls under the age of 13.

[realunoriginal]

RU, for unspecified reasons, as I said in the post you selectively quoted. I have argued in favor of an infinite chain of goats elsewhere.

If you want to believe in Goat gods then go bow to Satyr.

[Banno]

If you want to believe in Goat gods then go bow to Satyr.

Gods?

[realunoriginal]

The way I see it, the universe may have came about in one of the following ways.

1) It was caused by an uncaused cause; 1st cause, "god", primal chaos etc.
This, in my view, is not causation because the chain of causation has been broken by the inclusion of an uncaused cause. Calling causation limited as you have done makes it into something else. The uncaused cause does not have a cause, yet is a step in a supposed process of causation.
I find this to be a contradiction and so would not call it causation.

2) It is infinite, without beginning or end.
This is causation, since the causative process is never broken.

I do not see how an uncaused or self-caused object can exist. I find the concept absurd.

Do you realize that you just presented a philosophical version of the fundamental Quantum Mechanic problem?

I think that you should keep-in-mind that Causation *CAN BE* either limited or unlimited depending on its context.

But let us move on...

Does not a human life have a definitive Beginning and End??? ~or not?

At the beginning of life, one is assembled from gametes from both ones mother and father. These are combined to form the zygote, which is grown and "you" are developed. At the end of life, ones constituent parts decompose and disperse into the environment, whereupon they may be re-used by other organisms.

During life, also, ones constituent parts are constantly being recycled, re-used, expended, new parts acquired and assimilated.

A "life" is a temporary coincidence of the material resulting in the effect of a conscious organism.

No Beginning, just change. No End, just change.

Perhaps the universe is analogous .... but I'm just too ignorant.

Then you are a believer in The Flux.

Regardless, if you do not ascribe a 'beginning' or an 'end' to life, then you are going to run into problems (of speaking). For example, people regularly-claim that the "beginning of life" is conception, birth, etc. Or, when your heart stops beating it means implies you are "dead". Now, you can make the claim that there is no Actual beginning or end to the chain-of-events (of life), but, even if you are true then your proposition does not necessarily-say anything regarding the "Real World". And this will be your problem...a gap between Metaphysical & Physical propositions.

The Common Minds, and idiots, absolutely-cannot cognize the notion of a Limitless & Infinite Universe.

They stop their minds right about "God" and the uncaused cause. And they say: "That is it, finished!"

I understand you.

I just believe you do not understand Causality as a human fabrication. *YOU* are assigning the value to First Cause!

I do not agree with the concept of a 1st cause, as above.

My use of it in this context is as I have observed theists use it. Observation of causation requires cause for universe. Couple this with the need for said cause to be the ultimate origin and beginning, the Absolute, and you are forced to formulate a theory of causation for reality which inherently contradicts itself.

Causality may be a human fabrication. There may be no causality. In which instance there is no requirement for a 1st cause.

That is where I am coming from --I think-- that there is *NO* requirement for the (theoretical) First Cause.

I mean there just might be a "First Cause", but, it could break whatever logical rules are put in place.

The "uncaused cause" could be a "Rule-Breaker" in terms of predictability, an anomalous, nonsensical rule.

Lack of causality would not appear to be the case however, considering that you are demonstrating causality by reading this message. However, causality may be a phenomena existing only within our limited human spectrum, meaning that there is a "beyond" of which we know nothing; the universe may be the product of something else, something eternal, absolute, uncaused and ... blahblahblah.

Do you see my problem with this?

Perhaps somewhat...

What I see is that *EVERYBODY* has a problem with this concept, as it necessarily-relates to Infinity-itself.

We have observed causation. We have not observed anything which is uncaused. Therefore it is in error to assume there are things which are uncaused.

We are ignorant of the nature of the universe itself, but this is no reason to invent such things as 1st causes with no basis other than as requirements of further speculation.

Well...I do not actually-believe that you can observe a Cause, so, I disagree with your premises.

You can only-observe affects. Causation entirely-is a logical phenomenon.

But that is another, longer argument to get into. (and I am running short of time lately)

Then link together Human Ignorance with Contradiction of First Cause and your problem will be solved.

Perhaps the concept of a 1st cause is the product of human ignorance?

Bravo!

...Spoken like a true genius.

I would say this (event) is when the Human Mind stops counting to Infinity.

I disagree with that. Causality makes sense whether limited or not: Cause >> Effect >> Cause >> Effect.

The loop can be endless or not...it merely-is a simplistic form of human logic: presupposition.

I regard causation as an infinite process. That is not infinite.

If one supposes that time and space were begun at some point by a 1st cause, then what continuum was this 1st cause occupying "when" it began time/space? Did it not need to occupy anything to exist? Was there anything to occupy? Was It everything? How did its actions occur when there was no time for them to occur in?

Creationists are desperate to answer these questions; and so are Philosophers & Physicists.

Your guesses are as good as mine until you can provide some rationale or evidence for a theory.

One is obliged to invent another plane of existence for this 1st cause to occupy in order to account for this problem. That and/or surmising that necessities of reality are not necessities but merely general guidelines which may be ignored by the exception of all exceptions - the hypothetical 1st cause.
When these necessities have never been demonstrated to be flexible. (I use the term necessity as opposed to laws, of physics, as laws imply that these may be broken or that that there is some agent which enforces them or that they are simply impositions which can be shrugged off, rather than the nature of existence itself)

We are obliged to make shit up to cover for our lack of knowledge.

I on the other hand am attempting to avoid making shit up by speculating upon what is already demonstrated by the universe itself.

But no matter who is discussing this subject, at heart it is all speculation.

Empiricism is the step down from Philosophy, in my opinion.

If you cannot prove your physical theses (of Causation) with Science then you are subject to Religious contamination.

Religion always-allows the easy answers, based on Faith, to fill in the gaps of logic & thinking.

How does a closed system of Causality necessarily-contradict anything *UNLESS* you presume infinite causality???

A 1st cause is uncaused. This is not causality. The 1st cause is itself an effect with no cause.

Whereas infinity is an unbroken chain of ....cause>effect>cause .... etc.

I recall you wrote above something to the effect of causation = .....cause<>effect<>cause<> ...
How do you account for the reversal of causality this implies?
"<>" indicates that causation may move in either direction (in time, I presume).

The way I see Cause & Effect is as one *WHOLE* type of chain.

I believe you automatically-see this chain as endless while I am attempting to show you that there can be more than one chain present. Some chains only-have a few, or several links in them. Some chains can extend so far that they seem infinite as they stretch on into oblivion. Just because I say this particular (finite) chain has a "First Cause", because this chain is limited and closed, can define Causality just as well as the endless chain. The difference is, however, a matter of Infinitude. And to describe the infinite chain *IS* impossible insofar as nobody apparently-knows to what ends this chain is attached to. Is there some great ball of weight at the end? Or is the beginning/end cut loose and holding onto Nothing?

I think this analogy might be suitable for the points you are making here.

Then you are going to keep confusing your notions of 'open' or 'closed' causal systems.

Neither system is necessitated by itself if indeed Causality is the result of human fabrications (of thought).

If causality is a human fabrication, then the universe may well have simply occurred, without instigation, spontaneously.
In which case there is no logical manner in which it is understandable and this entire discussion is pointless.

Yes, that is true.

But then I think discussing the Universe-itself becomes a matter of description more than anything else.

But you have no case for that!

Why must *YOU* include the uncaused-cause???

Why must *YOU* disagree that "God" is the beginning or end of the Universe???

Is not Human Ignorance the beginning and end of the known Universe???

Why must anybody attach a label to this other than "ignorance"???

Uncaused cause: not my invention.
I am extending, logically, its meaning in the terms of those who invented it.

Human perception, on the other hand, limits us in what we can know, yes. But does this necessitate that any speculation I can make is automatically in error?

No, but, like you said, your speculation must be grounded on something...whatever foundation you see fit.

Empirical Causality still does not presuppose an open system of sequences, let alone any kind of First Cause.

If Empiricism is your guide then you have no reason to believe the Universe-itself is infinite in nature, or finite.

All the Empiricist knows is whether his predictions are probably-true or not, and to what degree.

I agree.

I assert, however, that infinity is more likely to be "probably-true".

Why?

Just because you do not see the end of a (potentially)-infinite chain, does that mean there is or is not a beginning/end?

Wherever you go to that end is postulation: God fucked Nature. It does not make sense but does it need to?

Neither my case or that of the Universe definitively-prove to me what a "cause" actually-is.

All they signify is that events occur(red) which lead or led to *MY* conscious existence.

No "events occurred" to originate a 1st cause, however.

Here, again, is where the process of causation is broken.

Yes, that is correct.

Speculation begins.

There is no difference between Spiritual and Material until you reach the actual end of the Universe; what is there???

What are you trying to say here?

What is at the end of the universe?
What difference is there between spiritual and material?
Something else?

With regards to the end of the universe, the question contradicts itself; there is no "is" in such a concept.
I have already indicated my position with regard to S/M, above.

I meant that Spiritualism and/or Materialism are usually-posited as the direct result of the uncaused cause.

Why is that not sufficient??? You just demonstrated the necessary logic.

This is not sufficient because I do not accept something being cause of itself to be possible.

Then how are things possible?

The Species as an Organism; the death of individuality?

Well, although Individuality is becoming erased from existence, I do not believe Quantity has enough power to completely-override Quality (of Man) in the end. That battle wages on, forever.

That depends on how vague and over-generalized the "God" concept is.

I see commonalities: God is the Ideal, Perfect Man, the Most Powerful & Absolute Tyrant.

Another concept is that god is "everything". Which includes you and me, presumably.

Which seems to mean that we should worship ourselves, or eachother.

MagnetWoman -who I notice has followed you to this forum- is quite enthralled with this idea ...

Yes, MM does seem to be advancing his Christian dialectic into something new and never-before seen. I have labeled this phenomenon "Post-Christianity", because, Religion must evolve to survive this Age of Atheism. And it will because it always-does. To say that human animals are 'gods' though pushes the boundaries of (social) acceptability. MM treads on dangerous grounds with his thoughts, and it seems as though he has completely-embodied the "God" concept. I wonder what it will produce...?

You have got to quit saying First Cause contradicts Causality, because it does not!

That only-depends on whether the chain of causes are Limited or Unlimited.

If there is an object which has not been caused, this object contradicts causality.

Whether or not this object is hypothesised as initiating a process itself is irrelevant.

To say that objects are caused, uncaused, or not caused at all, however, is a big area of philosophy to dig into.

This is where your notion of Causality slips into Materialism.

ILP forum

When humans are indoctrinated into perceiving reality in a certain manner, they will see what they want to see everywhere and what they don't see will become invisible. They do not want to know about knowledge. They want the lies that sustain society and their feel-good belief in "equality", so that they don't have to feel afraid or inferior any more ...

When this is pointed out to such people, the usual result is that weaklings will band together in an effort to shout down or overpower the offender through weight of numbers.
Or, weaklings will assume positions with inherent power; such as mod/admin. Carleas, for example. This conferred power will then be used in the furtherance of the weaklings' delusion.

Failing that, they will call you names; such as misogynist, racist, homophobe, bigot, fascist etc. These are concepts which basically mean one thing and one thing only - your mind is wrong, you evil person; you are unhealthy and unclean and should be ashamed of your existence. Their learned ideology has instructed them to view certain ideas and knowledge as being unacceptable and, indeed, unthinkable; to the point where they become positively allergic to any such utterance.

The only power these .. humans ... have is 1,their numbers and 2, ones own threshold to sustain their tide of bullshit.

You are exactly-correct about your synopsis of these social events.

I am developing a more effective technique of philosophizing against these kinds of sub-human people, something more internalized and integrating. I have learned my lessons. You must camouflage yourself as a mindless, stupid sheep to be of any significant effect. You must remove your pride, your own self-worth, and act as one of them "sucking up" and "kissing ass" until you maneuver yourself into a position from whence you can strike a deathblow to the whole organization from the inside-out. You must engage in group masturbation and a heavy degree of superficial decadence to reveal your (social) worth to the worms who feed upon this.

There are other ways, however, that include grouping up a large amount of Anarchist-types and fighting numbers with numbers. But I prefer my individuality. And so a technique of masquerading around is best for me. I encourage you to mask and repress your own feelings of superiority inside The Group if you are forced into the situation, or to lead your own armies. But I can no longer be bothered by the mindless fucks. I have grown too resentful for them after the amount of disrespect I have received for the mere sake of philosophizing. That is all I ever intended to engage in. And I was banned for it...Lessons Learned.

The fags on this forum are just as bad, slamming their heads into the sand at the approach of anything threatening their emotions...

...but I digress. It is too easy for me to rant these days...

[realunoriginal]

Do you realize that you just presented a philosophical version of the fundamental Quantum Mechanic problem?

What is this, exactly?

Quantum Mechanics, and Science in-general, as Physics, tells us that Light-energy exists in two modes...a duality. There exists a light-as-wave function and a light-as-particle function. As a wave function, light has neither a beginning nor an end. And I presume this is your perspective insofar as Causality is concerned. However, on the other hand, light can also be used to describe particularity: light particles. In this latter sense-of-speaking, light can be infinite in its scope (which is not to say it has an infinite scope...), yet, particularity depends on its finitude in order to make sense.

And this directly-applies to Causality as you have presented your case.

*IF* Causality is unlimited, and infinite, then you are referring to the wave function of light.

*IF* Causality is limited, and finite, then you are referring to the particular function of light.


Your case, as shown, is a presentation of the former mindset...that Causality is Unlimited.

What I have been attempting to expose to you is its alternative mindset; which is a basic Duality.

So that is what I meant by relating and linking the two discussions of Causality and Light-energy.

I think that you should keep-in-mind that Causation *CAN BE* either limited or unlimited depending on its context.

Well, again, this would necessitate an uncaused cause being the 1st cause in a "limited" causative process, so I would not think so.

The uncaused-cause *CAN* exist in a limited/finite (reality) set.

This limit is set by human knowing/knowledge/ignorance.

Life is a condition of the material. Not a thing-in-itself.

Not necessarily!

Everything cannot be reduced down to materiality; otherwise 'ideas' would not be possible!

It doesn't have an absolute beginning and end, it's just the effect of matter organised in a particular fashion.

That *MAY* be true; but can you prove it??????

I mean there just might be a "First Cause", but, it could break whatever logical rules are put in place.

The "uncaused cause" could be a "Rule-Breaker" in terms of predictability, an anomalous, nonsensical rule.

But then, if you have established that causation is breakable, why seek to concoct a causative explanation for the universe?

There is your conditional!!! ~"if you have established that causation is breakable"

Are you asking me this question or is this your question towards the Theist???

The Theist cannot argue on behalf of breakable causation; he would lose the argument.

If there is a 1st cause, it breaks causation.

It breaks unlimited/infinite causation.

If causation is breakable, there need be no 1st cause.

This is incorrect.

If causation is breakable then there must be a First Cause.

The next step is to figure out what 'breaks' causal chains, if anything at all...?

Well...I do not actually-believe that you can observe a Cause, so, I disagree with your premises.

You can only-observe affects. Causation entirely-is a logical phenomenon.

Causes are themselves effects, or we come to The End.

So really it's more like:

..... cause:effect>cause:effect>cause:effect>.....

Which doesn't really do it justice, but was the best I could come up with at 5 seconds notice ...

I would argue back to the point that Causality is a human fabrication here.

Is it any more or less than a Man-made phenomenon, produced by the human brain/mind?

I believe there are Necessary/Sufficient Causes just as there is Necessary/Sufficient Logic or Reasoning.

The way I see Cause & Effect is as one *WHOLE* type of chain.

I would see the entirity of infinite reality/spacetime as a causative chain, and hence infinite.

Otherwise, there's a 1st cause somewhere, or the universe popped into existence without instigation at some point.

The chain has to be infinite to avoid these 2 possibilities.

That seems to be the case and I believe the "Universe-itself" is infinite by its nature, never-ending, never-beginning.

If it is not infinite, this implies an uncaused cause or an uncaused effect (in the case of uninstigated existence, as above).

So, causation is broken.

You are right; Causality is undone *IF* there is an uncaused-cause that actually-exists.

But do "Causes" even exist outside of Human comprehension? Is Causality a case of Objectivity or not?

Then how are things possible?

What things?

How can something be the cause of itself? How can something exist, in order to cause itself to come into existence?

Let me rephrase my question:

How are causes/effects possible, in the first place?

To say that objects are caused, uncaused, or not caused at all, however, is a big area of philosophy to dig into.

This is where your notion of Causality slips into Materialism.

My problem with dualism is that these so-called spiritual phenomena still have a material effect.
Therefore they are material.

I am a monist, because dualism makes no sense; you've got a whole (supposed) range of phenomena which are arbitrarily defined as immaterial even though they are (supposedly) capable of interaction and affect with material phenomena.

The 2 should be totally incapable of interaction if they are separate. We're talking about differing levels of being in this instance. Yet, they interact, so they are the same thing.

If we establish that spiritual = material then we can eliminate what is bullshit invented as consolation or as Gap-fillers through demonstrability and reproducibility.

I agree with your contentions here. And I-myself cannot reconcile what is Known with what is Unknown.

First you would need to dig into Epistemology and what constitutes Human Knowledge, before you can begin to bridge the gap between Materialism and "Immaterialism" or Spiritualism. Because I believe there are things that people know, empirically-speaking, and there are many more things that people do not know, and cannot know (right now), empirically-speaking. Once a person gives into Spiritualism then what is known (by Humanity) is not necessarily-based on Fact, Evidence, or Proof...rather things become to be known through Human Intuition and Imagination. This is the realm-in-which I could say "Unicorns are real" and the rules for engagement have changed... ~"real" according to what principles? ~Empiricism? (No.) You enter into a system of thought where things are true because you say they are true. And this is the first step into Spiritualism...believing there exists a "God" because a priest says so. (Authority)

[realunoriginal]

Well, I don't know if light forms are directly analogous to causality.

I do not know if can be analogous as well.

But I did want to make a point of it because the thought and comparison came-to-mind.

The uncaused-cause *CAN* exist in a limited/finite (reality) set.

This limit is set by human knowing/knowledge/ignorance.

But its not limited in that case, we just don't know what some of the causes were.

Ignorance =/= 1st cause.

I am not so certain about that contention of yours...

...in some ways First Cause does seem to be necessarily-correlated to Human Intelligence/Ignorance.

For example, if I could count to "infinity" then I could theoretically-reason out the First Cause.

But Human Ignorance is stopping me from reaching that distant (infinite) Unknown Quality/Quantity.

Life is a condition of the material. Not a thing-in-itself

.

Not necessarily!

Everything cannot be reduced down to materiality; otherwise 'ideas' would not be possible!

Like what?

Undefinable things, Unnecessary things, things-themselves, 'ideas', 'imaginations', "The Future".

The problem here is that *IF* Causality is a Human Construct/Fabrication then that reliance on Human Subjectivity would create a whole different set of problems concerning what is 'material' or 'immaterial'. In other words, what is the basis for Material Existence...the atom, correct? Well, what is an "atom" other than an Undefinable thing??? Because if you can define things based on material existence then you need to account for whether those descriptions/explanations are either sufficient or necessary (using Logic). The immaterial, however, does not necessarily-rely on that same kind of thinking (Logic) for its answers.

It is "faith-based".

It is "intuitive".

(Which is not to say that Material Explanations cannot come to dominate the paradigm, because it does...with Empiricism.)

That *MAY* be true; but can you prove it??????

Well, I can prove that the body does not simply disappear upon death. I can prove that damage to brain impairs mind, indicating that mind = brain. From which I can extend an hypothesis stating that the mind is an effect of the body, meaning that YOU die when your body dies.

Your bodily remains decompose and may be reused by other organisms, but they don't END upon your death.

In this sense, there is no beginning or end to life, it is just a condition of the material while your bodily functions are ... functioning.

Even if you are right about these propositions (which I agree with by the way) then I still do not believe that necessarily-proves the point you are attempting to make. Can anything be/become Absolutely-proven...?

If causation is breakable, then there doesn't have to be a god, or 1st cause or whatever because the universe does not need a cause in order to exist.

If causation is breakable, literally anything can happen and we know nothing.

So, its either that or infinite causality. That's my position.

And that is a position I would not argue against because it is one of the best explanations regarding Causality.

But, as you have clearly-shown, the Theist will *LOSE* his God-argument based on this Reasoning.

I do not believe the Theist can argue on behalf of "God" using Causality...and win against a Philosopher.

This is incorrect.

If causation is breakable then there must be a First Cause.

The next step is to figure out what 'breaks' causal chains, if anything at all...?

No. If causation is breakable, there doesn't need to be any cause of any kind.

That is a paradox.

If there is an unlimited, or even a limited "causal chain", and this "causal chain" becomes broken...then what is the 'cause' for the break (or First Cause)??? Because if the "causal chain" is anything but perfectly-unlimited & unbroken it will beg the question regarding what a 'cause' is in the first place. However, if the "causal chain" does break then this is a paradox as you have pointed out.

Either way, broken or unbroken, limited or unlimited, a 'break' in a "causal chain" begs the question regarding what a Cause actually-is...

A 1st cause is uncaused, right? It wasn't caused itself. It had no 1st cause.
Therefore in this case causality is not happening. Something is existing without being caused.

I do not know.

That all depends on whether 'causes' are human fabrications...are they???

You tell me. Because I am under the belief that 'causes' *ARE* in-fact human fabrications of reality.

In a reality where there is a 1st cause, the rules of causality are not absolutes and do not apply. Thus, things can pop into and out of existence without instigation or causal effect.

Why would there not be any absolutes under the circumstances of an Existent First Cause????

Does not the First Cause presume the existence of a (somehow) functioning Absolute???

Since this doesn't happen to any noticeable degree, I would conclude that this isn't the case.

Based on Materialism I think you are correct here.

The Materialist cannot accept Absolutes at all; it defeats the Ideology/Perspective.

I would argue back to the point that Causality is a human fabrication here.

Is it any more or less than a Man-made phenomenon, produced by the human brain/mind?

I believe there are Necessary/Sufficient Causes just as there is Necessary/Sufficient Logic or Reasoning.

It is an observation of phenomena. Limited by the fact that we are the ones doing the observing, but still better than any other theory we've got.

I agree with that.

You are right; Causality is undone *IF* there is an uncaused-cause that actually-exists.

But do "Causes" even exist outside of Human comprehension? Is Causality a case of Objectivity or not?

Can I step outside my own comprehension and view the world objectively? No.
Can't answer that question.

Neither can I. And this is where the problems of a Causal Universe appear.

You would next need to define exactly-what a 'cause' is, without any degree of uncertainty.

Furthermore, that would have to be premised upon human fabrications, which falls backward to other sets of problems...

(...like how does one explain 'breaks' in 'causal chains' if they are even possible to begin with, either way?)

How are causes/effects possible, in the first place?

Are you implying that there was a cause for causation?

That something created causation?
But this is causation! So causation created causation!
Causa sui again.

I think causation is one of the fundamental elements of being, not something that was itself created or made possible.

I agree with that.

I see Causation as a more "Wholistic" processing of existence-itself.

I link this description with what Satyr would call his "Flux". And in that sense, Causality becomes insufficient to describe/explain any kind of "Total Reality"...because I believe Causality is directly-tied to Human Ignorance, and what it is possible, or not, for the human specie to know in any given lifetime, based on our progression of Human Intelligence, and Greater Human Evolution.

I agree with your contentions here. And I-myself cannot reconcile what is Known with what is Unknown.

Well that is the core of it.
We know about some things, we are ignorant of others.

But the existence or non-existence of unknown things is not predicated upon our level of knowledge of them.

But if these things are not demonstrable, then they do not exist, as they cannot affect or be affected and have no value as existing objects. So, non-existent.

I would avoid categorizing the Unknown as "spiritual"; that word carries with it connotations which you don't want.

I think that is a fitting end to Causality-itself. What is Unknown, is in-fact, Non-existent.

The theoretical/theistic "First Cause", to me, is Unknown, and therefore is Non-existent.

Although I would define this "First Cause" as "Originality" or "The Source of All Things".

Theists would call it "God"...but they would claim it/Him as an "existent thing"...but based on what Logic???

[skeptic griggsy]

Apaosha, thanks for defending ignosticism. Please folks, ponder the thread the ignosic-Ockham and the new one arguments about God.

[skeptic griggsy]

Apaosha, fine.
Aquinas speaks not of First Cause in time but as the Ultimate Explanation, but as He is just God did it, He explains nothing whatsoever. Those two threads expose His nothingness.
It is William Lane Craig, who begs the question of a starting point in his Kalam form, of the cosmological arguments, whic h does concern time.. But as Aquinas knew, every day arrives on time eternally. Lane is resourceful but he cannot justify the argument with all his sophistry nor more than can advanced theologians justify God when layperson's arguments fail as Dawkins well knows, his critics notwithstanding or anyone can justify the ontological argument.

[Wootah]

It is William Lane Craig, who begs the question of a starting point in his Kalam form, of the cosmological arguments, whic h does concern time..

Can you spell this out for me in relation to the Kalam argument or offer a link I can read please?

[skeptic griggsy]

Kyle Williams keelhauls this argument: In an infinite number of days, every day must arrive on time, a beginningless time line, though, doesn't begin on a particular day [ that no starting point that Craig begs, S.G.] , By definition, it does not begin at all. It has been following day by day forever. Every day arrives on schedule, and it is added to the infinite time line."
Craig erroneously finds it contradictory that the odd or the equal numbers to infinity like the sum of all numbers, so that there can be no actual infinity. Nay, t'is no contradiction whatsoever but his intuitive feeling. The actual infinity, he notwithstanding, is that potential infinity- it never ends.