Why is the First Cause Argument Flawed?

[Kuroneko]

Unrelated and therefore irrelevant.

Despite that your reasoning is quite analogous?

LOL! I suggest you rethink it there, buddy. :D

Why? There is no logical contradiction there. If there is, please point it out.

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

Why? Causual infinite regresses are not necessary to any position I'm advocating here. It is, however, necessary for your argument that infinite regresses aren't possible. My only purpose is to show that such an assumption is not justified, and hence your First Cause argument is not sound. That is all.

[EvilGrey]

Infinite regress of potential causality is quite possible; an infinite regress of actualized causality is most definitely not, for if it were, we wouldn't exist now.

[Kuroneko]

Infinite regress of potential causality is quite possible; an infinite regress of actualized causality is most definitely not, for if it were, we wouldn't exist now. :D

You keep repeating that, but you have not shown why that is the case. On the other hand, in aprevious post I've shown how it is possible, at any given time, for a potential be actualized even if there is an infinite regress of causality in the past direction.

Would you care to point out a flaw in my reasoning, or will you simply repeat the above claim?

[EvilGrey]

Infinite regress of potential causality is quite possible; an infinite regress of actualized causality is most definitely not, for if it were, we wouldn't exist now.

You keep repeating that, but you have not shown why that is the case. On the other hand, in aprevious post I've shown how it is possible, at any given time, for a potential be actualized even if there is an infinite regress of causality in the past direction.

Would you care to point out a flaw in my reasoning, or will you simply repeat the above claim?

An infinite number of causes must be in the process of being actualized before cause x, the creation of Earth, can be actualized. There is no "past direction" as time is not pertinent to the first cause argument; there is only a backwards and forwards movement through a series. Time itself is merely the perception of manifest causality.

[The Question]

Infinite regress of potential causality is quite possible; an infinite regress of actualized causality is most definitely not, for if it were, we wouldn't exist now.

You keep repeating that, but you have not shown why that is the case. On the other hand, in aprevious post I've shown how it is possible, at any given time, for a potential be actualized even if there is an infinite regress of causality in the past direction.

Would you care to point out a flaw in my reasoning, or will you simply repeat the above claim?

An infinite number of causes must be in the process of being actualized before cause x, the creation of Earth, can be actualized. There is no "past direction" as time is not pertinent to the first cause argument; there is only a backwards and forwards movement through a series. Time itself is merely the perception of manifest causality.

You present a compelling argument. I'm on board.

When can we start inquisiting the infidels?

[EvilGrey]

You keep repeating that, but you have not shown why that is the case. On the other hand, in aprevious post I've shown how it is possible, at any given time, for a potential be actualized even if there is an infinite regress of causality in the past direction.

Would you care to point out a flaw in my reasoning, or will you simply repeat the above claim?

An infinite number of causes must be in the process of being actualized before cause x, the creation of Earth, can be actualized. There is no "past direction" as time is not pertinent to the first cause argument; there is only a backwards and forwards movement through a series. Time itself is merely the perception of manifest causality.

You present compelling argument. I'm on board.

When can we start inquisiting the infidels?

We will do nothing and let the infidels destroy themselves as God gave them that power over their destinies.

[Kuroneko]

An infinite number of causes must be in the process of being actualized before cause x, the creation of Earth, can be actualized.

And I ask you: at which time must an infinite number of causes be actualized for the creation of Earth? The argument in my previous post shows that the answer is quite simply at no time.

There is no "past direction" as time is not pertinent to the first cause argument; there is only a backwards and forwards movement through a series. Time itself is merely the perception of manifest causality. :)

A semantic nitpick, nothing more. Here, you define time as the perception of manifest causality, and hence "past direction" in time is simply the "antecedent direction" in the causality chain. The shift in terminology has no actual relevance to the cognitive content of the above argument. A red herring, nothing more.

[EvilGrey]

And I ask you: at which time must an infinite number of causes be actualized for the creation of Earth? The argument in my previous post shows that the answer is quite simply at no time.

No matter how you attempt to reconcile the matter, the amount of time required for an infinite number of causes to be actualized before cause x is infinite. It cannot be accomplished in a finite amount of time.

What I said about time being merely the perception of manifest causality is important. If there's an infinite regress of causality, then time in the past is infinite. But modern science says otherwise, that time is only finite, beginning after the Big Bang. Consequently, causality is only finite, beginning after the Big Bang. If causality were infinite, time would likewise be infinite.

[Kuroneko]

You present a compelling argument. I'm on board.

When can we start inquisiting the infidels? ;)

Convincing? I think not. Not to mention that even if his defense of this assumption will be successful, he still has not addressed the implicit assumption of the uniqueness of the uncaused cause.

[The Question]

You present a compelling argument. I'm on board.

When can we start inquisiting the infidels?

Convincing? I think not. Not to mention that even if his defense of this assumption will be successful, he still has not addressed the implicit assumption of the uniqueness of the uncaused cause.

Just a little sacrcasm on my part. Carry on.

[Kuroneko]

And I ask you: at which time must an infinite number of causes be actualized for the creation of Earth? The argument in my previous post shows that the answer is quite simply at no time.

No matter how you attempt to reconcile the matter, the amount of time required for an infinite number of causes to be actualized before cause x is infinite. It cannot be accomplished in a finite amount of time.

How many times do I have to repeat it? Zeno. Zeno. Zeno.

The fact that infinitely many necessary conditions can be found between two events does not show that there needs to be an infinite period of time between the two.

What I said about time being merely the perception of manifest causality is important. If there's an infinite regress of causality, then time in the past is infinite.

False. The same Zeno fallacy again. All time needs to be is infinitely divisible, not infinite in length.

But modern science says otherwise, that time is only finite, beginning after the Big Bang. Consequently, causality is only finite, beginning after the Big Bang. If causality were infinite, time would likewise be infinite. :)

Finite, yes. But the rest does not follow. Current science shows that the time interval is open; there is no "instant" that the Big Bang "took place." Time is meaningless there ("then") as well because of the singularity condition. What this means is that time, despite being finite, has no definite beginning. An infinite regress of time "steps" is not only possible under those conditions, but necessary.

Surely you understand the concept of an open interval.

[Patrick Degan]

To cut through several mountains of semantics, First Cause fails because at its essence it assumes the premise of the argument to be its own proof. Essentially, a massive exercise in circular reasoning.

[Durandal]

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.

Did you even read what I wrote? Infinite causes can take place in a finite amount of time, therefore x can be reached. What's next? We can't have a finite area under a curve because it's divided up into infinite intervals? Incessantly repeating your arguments after having them broken down and challenged is no way to win a debate.

[SirNitram]

I go away for a day, and he stops backpeddling to finally deploy the Wall Of Ignorance behind one of the oldest fallacies in the books. Why am I not surprised?

[SyntaxVorlon]

You keep repeating that, but you have not shown why that is the case. On the other hand, in aprevious post I've shown how it is possible, at any given time, for a potential be actualized even if there is an infinite regress of causality in the past direction.

Would you care to point out a flaw in my reasoning, or will you simply repeat the above claim?

An infinite number of causes must be in the process of being actualized before cause x, the creation of Earth, can be actualized. There is no "past direction" as time is not pertinent to the first cause argument; there is only a backwards and forwards movement through a series. Time itself is merely the perception of manifest causality.

You present a compelling argument. I'm on board.

When can we start inquisiting the infidels?

Wait a sec. It took you two 9 pages to get to a definate point of view and define what you believe is the problem with the secular FCA??!!??
Wow I can't believe anyone could really be that dense but I'm sure you can do worse.

[EvilGrey]

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.

Infinite causes can take place in a finite amount of time, therefore x can be reached. What's next?

Prove it.

We can't have a finite area under a curve because it's divided up into infinite intervals? Incessantly repeating your arguments after having them broken down and challenged is no way to win a debate.

The actual nature of the universe precludes the option of infinitely subdividing an interval in the real world.

Learn to differentiate between an infinite series of an abstract thing and an infinite series of an a manifest thing.

[Frank Hipper]

The actual nature of the universe precludes the option of infinitely subdividing an interval in the real world.

Learn to differentiate between an infinite series of an abstract thing and an infinite series of an a manifest thing.

Is that a sense of humor I see peeking out?

[LadyTevar]

We can't have a finite area under a curve because it's divided up into infinite intervals? Incessantly repeating your arguments after having them broken down and challenged is no way to win a debate.

The actual nature of the universe precludes the option of infinitely subdividing an interval in the real world.

Learn to differentiate between an infinite series of an abstract thing and an infinite series of an a manifest thing.

Is not Time considered Infinite, to the averagely intelligent person (Since SirNitram agrued with me about Infinite Time)? Yet what do we do every day with our clocks and watches and timepieces, but break it up into hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds, nanoseconds... ad infinitum?

Since Time is part of the Nature of the Universe, then it seems it does, indeed, include that option. Even God is broken down into Father, Son, Holy Ghost, is he not?

[Durandal]

Prove it.

Because differential calculus tells us so, and events which take place in a timespan less than that of Planck time have a measurable effect on this universe.

The actual nature of the universe precludes the option of infinitely subdividing an interval in the real world.

Learn to differentiate between an infinite series of an abstract thing and an infinite series of an a manifest thing.

Bullshit. The actual nature of the universe precludes any initial cause. If you have solid evidence that time has been quantized, please present it. Otherwise, we can safely assume that it is continuous.

[Kuroneko]

The actual nature of the universe precludes the option of infinitely subdividing an interval in the real world.

Really? According to which accepted theory? Even in quantum mechanics, every time-dependent wavefunction needs to be continuously differentiable with respect to time. Without the assumption that time is infinitely divisible (more strongly, is a complete metric space), there is quite simply no physics.

[Kuroneko]

Is not Time considered Infinite, to the averagely intelligent person (Since SirNitram agrued with me about Infinite Time)? Yet what do we do every day with our clocks and watches and timepieces, but break it up into hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds, nanoseconds... ad infinitum?

Why is that a problem? What do we do with real numbers but break them up into tenths, hundredth, thousandths ... ad nauseum? A limitation imposed on us because our language only allows us to deal with countable things, and yet real numbers are uncountable. An artifact of notation (indeed, every notation which we can define, actually), nothing more.

[LadyTevar]

Is not Time considered Infinite, to the averagely intelligent person (Since SirNitram agrued with me about Infinite Time)? Yet what do we do every day with our clocks and watches and timepieces, but break it up into hours, minutes, seconds, microseconds, nanoseconds... ad infinitum?

Why is that a problem? What do we do with real numbers but break them up into tenths, hundredth, thousandths ... ad nauseum? A limitation imposed on us because our language only allows us to deal with countable things, and yet real numbers are uncountable. An artifact of notation (indeed, every notation which we can define, actually), nothing more.

Correct. So, since last time I checked, we humans are Natural beings within the Universe and the Real World, then by breaking up the infinite into understandable objects ad nauseum is also Natural to the Universe and the Real World, wouldn't you say?

And EvilGrey, plese comment on how the Infinate God is and has been broken up into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and how each can remain infinite in power and scope

[Durandal]

There are varying degrees of infinity. Compare the set of all real numbers to all integers. The former is obviously a larger infinite set. Then again, according to EvilGrey, the number 1 cannot exist because you can count infinitely backward from it.

[Kuroneko]

There are varying degrees of infinity. Compare the set of all real numbers to all integers. The former is obviously a larger infinite set.

Simple? Oh, yes. Obvious? Not really. Cantor's diagonalization is like a bicycle--almost painful in its simplicty, and yet if it was truly obvious, someone would have done it centuries before it was actually done.

Edit: typo.

[EvilGrey]

Ahhh, the stupidity in this thread knows no limits!

Take a number and keep dividing it by two forever. Not impossible, correct?

Take a candy bar, cut it in half, and continue to halve each piece forever and ever.

Eventually you will no longer be able to cut it in half. The constituent elements become so small you cannot possibly halve them.

Numbers are abstract, not actual existing things. Candy bars, and causes/effects, are quite different.