Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

[Patrick Degan]

The "First Mover" argument is a self-contradictory exercise in how not to reason correctly. It asserts the following two premises:

1. Every effect must have a cause.
2. This chain of cause and effect cannot be traced back infinitely,

which lead to the conclusion:

There must have been an initial, uncaused cause to start things off. This is assumed to be God.

Note premises 1 and 2. Premise 1 asserts that every cause must have an effect (a reasonable assumption). Premise 2 then asserts that this chain cannot continue infinitely, which completely contradicts the first premise. If every effect must have a cause, then you are declaring an infinite chain of cause and effect by definition.

The conclusion is just laughable. If every cause must have an effect, then it is impossible to conclude that there is an "uncaused cause" because it violates Premise 1.

The conclusion isn't laughable so much as your ineptitude is.

The argument of contingency reinforces the first cause argument, which itself is a variation of the argument. Your pitiful "refutation" is erroneous.

Careful now. Circular reasoning will only make you dizzy.

[Kuroneko]

Oh, you've come back as I was writing my reply to Mr. Soresso!

...

The conclusion isn't laughable so much as your ineptitude is. :D

The argument of contingency reinforces the first cause argument, which itself is a variation of the argument. Your pitiful "refutation" is erroneous. :D

Both Mr. Sorresso and I have also raised the question of why the premises (either stated and implicit) should be accepted in the first place. Perhaps you would like to address that instead?

[EvilGrey]

I have posted a valid, sound variation of the first cause argument somewhere above which should help you poor fools understand. Posting fallacious versions of the argument does not negate the soundness of the ACTUAL first cause argument. LOL!

A little side note, but the Big Bang theory only further lends credence to the validity of the first cause argument.

And with this, I will end any further discussion of this topic as not one person here has demonstrated even a modicum of understanding the argument. I am tired of reading strawmans and refutations of those strawmans.

[Durandal]

Quite right, which is why I wanted to see how EvilGrey would justify such assumptions. It's a pity he seems to have disappeared in the middle of this.

I partially expected him to have argue that the time the universe had existed is finite (at least in the past direction); this argument was already referenced in this thread before. But that would only follow if there was a lower bound on the time between a cause and it effect. Time is not known to be quantized. [*]

The attempts to quantize time were met with failure. It's a pretty good conclusion to say that it isn't a force, but that's tentative in my opinion. Planck time predictions and Hawking Radiation give good basis for saying that time is discrete.

Or, he could have been feeling particularly clever and asked if I was prepared to accept the Big Bang as an uncaused cause, but not God.

That's not particularly clever. It's a simple matter of parsimony. We know the big bang happened, and we don't know that God exists. The choice is obvious. It's like asking, "What caused this to drop? Gravity, or me getting the fuck of my lifetime by Sarah Michelle Gellar with no one else having (Freddie Prinze, Jr., most particularly) any way of knowing last night?" The latter may or may not have happened.

Even stronger than that, Mr. Sorresso! It means there is no time "during" ("at the instant of") the Big Bang. In mathematical terms, in means time is an open interval, and not closed (again, at least in the past direction). And yes, I'm aware that none but a mathematician or a philosopher could possibly care about such details, but this discussion is philosophical in nature, I don't see why not. Especially since this allows the following conclusion: not even the Big Bang itself is an uncaused cause!

Which is interesting. However, the instant after the big bang could be viewed as an initial cause. If we were to view the universe as a perpetual clock, the second hand would not start at zero, but would begin at 1, but the clock would start ticking by virtue of the fact that the hand is at 1, necessitating that it came from zero, beginning the perpetual motion!

[*] If, sometime in the future, quantum mechanics evolves to include this, I vote for "chronon" as the quantum of time.

Quantizing gravity is the key. Space and time are inextricably linked.

[Kuroneko]

I have posted a valid, sound variation of the first cause argument somewhere above which should help you poor fools understand. Posting fallacious versions of the argument does not negate the soundness of the ACTUAL first cause argument. LOL!

Yes, I'm aware of it.

1) An infinite regression of potential causes actualized would preclude the existence of the universe.
2) The universe exists.
3) Therefore, there is only a finite regression of actualized causes.
4) Therefore, the universe has a first cause, a cause which cannot be the effect of another cause, i.e., it is uncaused.
5) The uncaused first cause is what men understand to be God (the Creator).

However, you have not given sufficient justification of the premises themselves. You do realize that even if the argument is valid, everything still rests on the premises, do you not?

Specifically, I see no reason to believe the first premiss. As well as the implict premiss I've stated twice before.

And with this, I will end any further discussion of this topic as not one person here has demonstrated even a modicum of understanding the argument. I am tired of reading strawmans and refutations of those strawmans. :)

Asking for reasons for the premises of an argument is hardly a strawman, or even a refutation. Well, it is a refutation if the arguer fails to provide such reasons, so I guess I could reasonably say I've given you a refutation.

The fact that I stated my assumption in slightly different form is irrelevant. Its basic content remains unchanged; the fact that you do not see this shows a lack of understanding of the argument on your part, not mine. The fact that you do not see the need to justify your assumptions in the first place shows a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part, not mine.

[EvilGrey]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand.

[Thirdfain]

Maybe you'd think better with those smileys shoved up your ass.

[EvilGrey]

Maybe you'd think better with those smileys shoved up your ass.

Do as I request -- unless you prefer ignorance?

[Kuroneko]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand. :D

That's quite amazing. That is the same fallacy that Zeno used. Surely you must also believe there is no such thing as motion, simply because an temporal interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.

[EvilGrey]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand.

That's quite amazing. That is the same fallacy that Zeno used. Surely you must also believe there is no such thing as motion, simply because an temporal interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.

Non-sequitur.

[Kuroneko]

The attempts to quantize time were met with failure. It's a pretty good conclusion to say that it isn't a force, but that's tentative in my opinion. Planck time predictions and Hawking Radiation give good basis for saying that time is discrete.

Yes, I'll even venture to say it is very likely that time is indeed discrete. However, my personal belief towards science, except in cases where the purpose is primarily speculative, is that it's better to hold a reasonable opinion that turns out to be wrong than a unreasonable opinion that turns out to be right, the criterion for reasonability being "what does current theory say about this?" That may appear somewhat strange at first glance, but what what better criterion is there to judge opinions on science than science itself?

That's not particularly clever. It's a simple matter of parsimony. We know the big bang happened, and we don't know that God exists. The choice is obvious. ...

Clever? Of course it isn't. I'm simply making a poke at the irony of the theist requiring a cause for the Universe, but not for God. (:

Which is interesting. However, the instant after the big bang could be viewed as an initial cause. If we were to view the universe as a perpetual clock, the second hand would not start at zero, but would begin at 1, but the clock would start ticking by virtue of the fact that the hand is at 1, necessitating that it came from zero, beginning the perpetual motion!

Even in the event that time turns out to be quantized, the existance of a "first step" is not guaranteed. It may turn out, for example, that the quanta of time depend on the local properties space-time, or somesuch. The possibility being that as one approaches the Big Bang singularity, the quanta of time actually get indefinitely small.

Or, perhaps not. Until we actually get a working theory of quantized time, this is still purely speculative, after all.

[Kuroneko]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand. :D

That's quite amazing. That is the same fallacy that Zeno used. Surely you must also believe there is no such thing as motion, simply because an temporal interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.

Non-sequitur.

Ah, I guess I shouldn't have assumed you would apply the reason in the same manner on all topics. I apologize. My meagre mind simply cannot comprehend the evident fact that the laws of reason depend on personal preferences.

[EvilGrey]

That's quite amazing. That is the same fallacy that Zeno used. Surely you must also believe there is no such thing as motion, simply because an temporal interval can be subdivided infinitely many times.

Non-sequitur.

Ah, I guess I shouldn't have assumed you would apply the reason in the same manner on all topics. I apologize. My meagre mind simply cannot comprehend the evident fact that the laws of reason depend on personal preferences.

My argument is objective and sound. Refute it, if you can.

[Kuroneko]

My argument is objective and sound. Refute it, if you can. :D

Really? Is there some logical problem with every cause being the effect of another cause? The fact that I cannot physically count them is hardly a logical reason. I cannot count all of the integers either, but that does not mean there is a logical contradiction in their conceptualization.

Is there some reason to believe, if we actually find an uncaused cause, that such a thing is unique?

None of those of those two questions have you adequately answered.

[Durandal]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand.

What's so hard about that? Just keep counting. Beside that, who are you to say at what arbitrary point one should stop counting?

Aside from that, counting back toward the big bang isn't counting back infinitely backward in time. It is an asymptotic limit, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to know anything about calculus.

Yes, I'll even venture to say it is very likely that time is indeed discrete. However, my personal belief towards science, except in cases where the purpose is primarily speculative, is that it's better to hold a reasonable opinion that turns out to be wrong than a unreasonable opinion that turns out to be right, the criterion for reasonability being "what does current theory say about this?" That may appear somewhat strange at first glance, but what what better criterion is there to judge opinions on science than science itself?

If it was not better to hold a reasonable opinion that turned out to be wrong, Isaac Newton wouldn't be a household name.

[EvilGrey]

Count to zero from negative infinity. Maybe then you'll understand.

What's so hard about that? Just keep counting. Beside that, who are you to say at what arbitrary point one should stop counting?

Let's say cause x represents the creation of Earth. Given an infinite regress of cause, x will never go from a state of potentiality to actuality because an infinite number of potential causes must first be actualized before it can be actualized. If there is an infinite regress of actualized causes, then Earth shouldn't exist and we shouldn't be here, yet we are here. It is logically absurd to have infinite regress, thus, we must concede that there is only finite regress. If you wish to prove that an infinite regress of causation is possible, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, the notion remains just that, a notion.

Aside from that, counting back toward the big bang isn't counting back infinitely backward in time. It is an asymptotic limit, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to know anything about calculus.

Ahhh, so it converges and is finite?

[Joe]

I'm glad I was out of town for this debate. Guys, quit giving this TK fucker (known as Soma on that board) what he wants. This guy hasn't budged an inch on anything and he has addressed maybe 1% of the arguments directed at him since he's been here.

[EvilGrey]

I'm glad I was out of town for this debate. Guys, quit giving this TK fucker (known as Soma on that board) what he wants. This guy hasn't budged an inch on anything and he has addressed maybe 1% of the arguments directed at him since he's been here.

No need to be annoyed because the discussion exceeds your intellectual limits.

[Joe]

I'm glad I was out of town for this debate. Guys, quit giving this TK fucker (known as Soma on that board) what he wants. This guy hasn't budged an inch on anything and he has addressed maybe 1% of the arguments directed at him since he's been here.

No need to be annoyed because the discussion exceeds your intellectual limits.

Shut the hell up, you puke-gutted fundie assholesucking fuckface.

[EvilGrey]

I'm glad I was out of town for this debate. Guys, quit giving this TK fucker (known as Soma on that board) what he wants. This guy hasn't budged an inch on anything and he has addressed maybe 1% of the arguments directed at him since he's been here.

No need to be annoyed because the discussion exceeds your intellectual limits.

Shut the hell up, you puke-gutted fundie assholesucking fuckface.

I will accept that as, "I am mentally challenged and cannot refute your brilliant, coherent, logically-sound arguments."

Concession accepted.

[Kuroneko]

Let's say cause x represents the creation of Earth. Given an infinite regress of cause, x will never go from a state of potentiality to actuality because an infinite number of potential causes must first be actualized before it can be actualized.

I say again: the same fallacy as Zeno. To go somewhere, you must first reach the halfway point, et cetera, et cetera.

And what exact the problem with an infinite number of causes, as long as all of them are in the past? At any particular time you pick, only finitely many causes must be realized to reach the effect because the infinite regress is always in that time's past. Thus, at all times, only a finite chain of effects must be realized to reach any particular future event.

If there is an infinite regress of actualized causes, then Earth shouldn't exist and we shouldn't be here, yet we are here. It is logically absurd to have infinite regress, thus, we must concede that there is only finite regress. If you wish to prove that an infinite regress of causation is possible, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, the notion remains just that, a notion. :)

I'm afraid in this case the burden of proof is yours, since you are the presenter of the argument.

[Joe]

No need to be annoyed because the discussion exceeds your intellectual limits.

Shut the hell up, you puke-gutted fundie assholesucking fuckface.

I will accept that as, "I am mentally challenged and cannot refute your brilliant, coherent, logically-sound arguments."

Concession accepted.

OK, whatever, Stone Deaf. I gave up on your wall of idiocy weeks ago.

[Durandal]

Let's say cause x represents the creation of Earth. Given an infinite regress of cause, x will never go from a state of potentiality to actuality because an infinite number of potential causes must first be actualized before it can be actualized. If there is an infinite regress of actualized causes, then Earth shouldn't exist and we shouldn't be here, yet we are here. It is logically absurd to have infinite regress, thus, we must concede that there is only finite regress. If you wish to prove that an infinite regress of causation is possible, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, the notion remains just that, a notion.

That's clever, but you're assuming that infinite causes cannot take place in a finite time, which is wrong. Causes causing effects on a differential scale will take place in a finite amount of time, just like adding up an infinite number of squares can yield a finite number. Again, I didn't expect you to know anything about calculus.

Ahhh, so it converges and is finite?

Well no, actually my explanation is incorrect. It can't be a limit because the function wouldn't approach zero from both sides of zero, unless you want to assume that negative time exists, but I won't go there. Suffice it to say, the graph will rapidly fall from the y-axis and then continue to do whatever it will, go up, go down, whatever. If the fall is rapid enough, you can determine a finite area under the curve.

[EvilGrey]

I say again: the same fallacy as Zeno. To go somewhere, you must first reach the halfway point, et cetera, et cetera.

Unrelated and therefore irrelevant.

And what exact the problem with an infinite number of causes, as long as all of them are in the past? At any particular time you pick, only finitely many causes must be realized to reach the effect because the infinite regress is always in that time's past. Thus, at all times, only a finite chain of effects must be realized to reach any particular future event.

LOL! I suggest you rethink it there, buddy.

I'm afraid in this case the burden of proof is yours, since you are the presenter of the argument.

You claim that an infinite regress of actualized causes is possible. Prove it. I am not making that claim, you are.

[EvilGrey]

That's clever, but you're assuming that infinite causes cannot take place in a finite time, which is wrong. Causes causing effects on a differential scale will take place in a finite amount of time, just like adding up an infinite number of squares can yield a finite number. Again, I didn't expect you to know anything about calculus.

On the contrary, the argument I have presented is valid regardless of the nature of time, whether it be finite of infinite. Cause x will never be reached.

Well no, actually my explanation is incorrect. It can't be a limit because the function wouldn't approach zero from both sides of zero, unless you want to assume that negative time exists, but I won't go there. Suffice it to say, the graph will rapidly fall from the y-axis and then continue to do whatever it will, go up, go down, whatever. If the fall is rapid enough, you can determine a finite area under the curve.

Fascinating! You made a chart of causality! LOL!