A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[uwot]

That the universe is uncaused does not fit with the everyday experience of humans, but there is really no reason that the universe will always fit with human expectations. The universe being uncaused would be outside normal human expectations, but that is not a limiting factor.

For what it's worth, thedoc, in philosophy it's called the problem of induction. Basically, Mr Can is extrapolating from his experience of causes, to conclude that there are no exceptions. Except, of course, the one he happens to believe in anyway.

[thedoc]

The first premise is obvious, for example IF some kind of chain linked together was infinite, then there would be no initial event, no beginning, nor no statrt. So I can agree with that.

But I wonder how in the second premise we have already arrived at the conclusion? How did we already arrive at there being an absolutely necessary event, being the first or initial event, link, cause, or effect here?

Why in the third premise are we looking for an initial event? Was there a presumed or presupposed initial event before we went looking? Also I, for one, certainly do not get lost looking along the infinite regress of causal sequences. I will either see an infinite regress or will come to and see an initial event. I have yet to come to and see an initial event, but I can promise you what I have found and seen is an infinite regression of events, with the result being obvious.

If, and when, you get lost looking for an infinite regression of events, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that nothing would ever exist? May I suggest instead of looking FOR an infinite regression of events and instead look ALONG a regress of events, and then report back to us with your findings.

To Me it looks plainly obvious that you are only looking for and thus only seeing what suits in with, fits, and supports what you previously believe is true.

To summarize: YOU have established what YOU can by "logic" and "maths" see: namely, that an infinite regress of causal relations could not exist, which is all well and good. But what you have established does NOT mean it is factual nor true.

By the way what you have really established here is more proof and evidence that beliefs, themselves, can decieve a person into seeing and finding anything that they want to see and find. If you go looking for some thing in particular, then you can find it. It just depends on how determined you are, and with a belief as strong as the one you have, then that will drive you to look for absolutely any thing to support it.

To assume that a cosmological infinite regress is possible, you must first assume that the universe is infinite in duration, but so far the evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning before which was nothing.

Just because the result is expected, does not make it wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

The universe being uncaused would be outside normal human expectations, but that is not a limiting factor.

Outside of "expectations," I can understand. A lot of things fit that description. But I think if we posit an uncaused universe, we're doing a fair bit more than presenting merely an "unexpected" hypothesis. Essentially, we're saying that there is, and can be, no explanation for how the universe came into existence. It exists, and the only reason is "because." It sounds a bit like how people's mothers get children to stop asking why-questions. And I can't help but wonder how cosmologists would react to such an answer.

After all, do we have a precedent for something that began to happen, but was self-caused in doing so? No, because to say something "caused itself" is simply to presume to make the effect the cause. In terms of priority, that just doesn't seem at all to work: how can something that (by definition) does not exist become the "cause" of itself coming into existence?

[ken]

The first premise is obvious, for example IF some kind of chain linked together was infinite, then there would be no initial event, no beginning, nor no statrt. So I can agree with that.

But I wonder how in the second premise we have already arrived at the conclusion? How did we already arrive at there being an absolutely necessary event, being the first or initial event, link, cause, or effect here?

Why in the third premise are we looking for an initial event? Was there a presumed or presupposed initial event before we went looking? Also I, for one, certainly do not get lost looking along the infinite regress of causal sequences. I will either see an infinite regress or will come to and see an initial event. I have yet to come to and see an initial event, but I can promise you what I have found and seen is an infinite regression of events, with the result being obvious.

If, and when, you get lost looking for an infinite regression of events, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that nothing would ever exist? May I suggest instead of looking FOR an infinite regression of events and instead look ALONG a regress of events, and then report back to us with your findings.

To Me it looks plainly obvious that you are only looking for and thus only seeing what suits in with, fits, and supports what you previously believe is true.

To summarize: YOU have established what YOU can by "logic" and "maths" see: namely, that an infinite regress of causal relations could not exist, which is all well and good. But what you have established does NOT mean it is factual nor true.

By the way what you have really established here is more proof and evidence that beliefs, themselves, can decieve a person into seeing and finding anything that they want to see and find. If you go looking for some thing in particular, then you can find it. It just depends on how determined you are, and with a belief as strong as the one you have, then that will drive you to look for absolutely any thing to support it.

To assume that a cosmological infinite regress is possible, you must first assume that the universe is infinite in duration, but so far the evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning before which was nothing.

Just because the result is expected, does not make it wrong.

But WHY would any person assume anything that they have absolutely no idea about?

No person has seen before the big bang, so what is the actual evidence, which supposedly indicates that the universe had a beginning, before which was nothing?

[Arising_uk]

... but so far the evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning before which was nothing.
...

But that's not what the BBT indicates, what is says, if we take the standardish view that the BB is where SpaceTime occurred, is that from the viewpoint of Physics and Cosmology we can say nothing about a 'before', funnily enough confirming the view of Kant about what we can or cannot say about phenomena.

[uwot]

Outside of "expectations,"...

It's called admitting you're wrong.

...I can understand.

Frankly Mr Can, I don't think you can.

[Arising_uk]

Outside of "expectations," I can understand. A lot of things fit that description. But I think if we posit an uncaused universe, we're doing a fair bit more than presenting merely an "unexpected" hypothesis. Essentially, we're saying that there is, and can be, no explanation for how the universe came into existence. It exists, and the only reason is "because." It sounds a bit like how people's mothers get children to stop asking why-questions. ...

And ironically enough this is exactly the theists method to stop why-questions - 'because 'God' did it' and even more apt in that he can give no explanation for why his 'God' came into existence other than just because 'it' is 'God'.

After all, do we have a precedent for something that began to happen, but was self-caused in doing so? No, because to say something "caused itself" is simply to presume to make the effect the cause. In terms of priority, that just doesn't seem at all to work: how can something that (by definition) does not exist become the "cause" of itself coming into existence?

I don't know, how does your 'God' do this?

[attofishpi]

Na shit. Are you telling me its not the next Prometheus movie, but some black and white flick and not even with sound.

Nope, I'm telling you that he is saying nothing that hasn't already been said and discussed in philosophy

Yes, i understood that, but could this same philosophical discussion with our new understandings of physics permit an altered more definite result?

...but this time around he's not open to even discussing the critiques.

From what i've seen he's been doing a heck of a lot of that from a lot of people, the atheists obviously want to go one way, and IC would like the other. To me, its all fuzzy logic, i can't see anyone getting a definitive result, but i will go with the bias, i'm content with this stage 1 argument ..i just would prefer to take a gander at stage 2.

[thedoc]

The universe being uncaused would be outside normal human expectations, but that is not a limiting factor.

Outside of "expectations," I can understand. A lot of things fit that description. But I think if we posit an uncaused universe, we're doing a fair bit more than presenting merely an "unexpected" hypothesis. Essentially, we're saying that there is, and can be, no explanation for how the universe came into existence. It exists, and the only reason is "because." It sounds a bit like how people's mothers get children to stop asking why-questions. And I can't help but wonder how cosmologists would react to such an answer.

After all, do we have a precedent for something that began to happen, but was self-caused in doing so? No, because to say something "caused itself" is simply to presume to make the effect the cause. In terms of priority, that just doesn't seem at all to work: how can something that (by definition) does not exist become the "cause" of itself coming into existence?

It is my understanding that is the most common answer given by cosmologists. Science has no answer for how the universe came into existence, but there are cosmologists who are trying to figure it out. It's one of the questions about the universe that, so far, has no good answer.

[Immanuel Can]

It is my understanding that is the most common answer given by cosmologists. Science has no answer for how the universe came into existence, but there are cosmologists who are trying to figure it out. It's one of the questions about the universe that, so far, has no good answer.

Well, none in conventional science or in speculative cosmology anyway. That much seems fair to say.

[Immanuel Can]

i just would prefer to take a gander at stage 2.

We're there. We're discussing whether or not there are any reasonable models of an uncaused cause, now that we know we have reason to know there has to be one. That's stage 2. We need to settle what an uncaused cause would look like: then on to stage 3, if we're content with the answers we decide.

[thedoc]

It is my understanding that is the most common answer given by cosmologists. Science has no answer for how the universe came into existence, but there are cosmologists who are trying to figure it out. It's one of the questions about the universe that, so far, has no good answer.

Well, none in conventional science or in speculative cosmology anyway. That much seems fair to say.

I don't agree, because every scientist working in that field, that I have heard or read, has stated that science has nothing to say about how the universe started, there is a great deal of speculation, but nothing for sure. Most scientists will state that the physics that scientists understand, doesn't work when you get to the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang and the actual beginning itself.

[Arising_uk]

Well, none in conventional science ...

What's 'unconventional science' when it's at home? Let me guess, religious metaphysics or even creationism.

[thedoc]

Well, none in conventional science ...

What's 'unconventional science' when it's at home? Let me guess, religious metaphysics or even creationism.

IC I would suggest that you ignore this kind of argumentative posts, it would seem that the poster is just trying to start an argument.

[Immanuel Can]

IC I would suggest that you ignore this kind of argumentative posts, it would seem that the poster is just trying to start an argument.

I haven't responded to him in a long time now, thedoc; really, for his own good. And you needn't worry -- I won't be engaging him again.