Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently you have never encountered cosmologies that have no start.

Guess again.
But I've showed you that they're all simply wrong. It cannot be the case. It's irrational to believe it.

You even gave mathematics as an example, ignoring that while there is a "starting point" for the natural numbers there is no starting point for the integers.

You've misunderstood the proof.
Go and do the experiment. Try to write any integer for which there is always a prerequisite. You'll soon realize why you're wrong.

You don't "experiment" with mathematics, you do proofs (starting from axioms, which are assumed not to need proofs*).

But you didn't understand the axiomatic explanation. So I'm inviting you to try to do it, in reality, so that you'll experience what you say you can't understand.

You'll never write a single number. You'll find out. Just do it.

And I don't know exactly what you might mean by the "prerequisite" of an integer.

The integers are representing a series of causes and effects. Integers by themselves or as merely themselves, don't have prerequisites: but every effect has a prerequisite cause. And we're using the integers to represent a sequence of causes and effects.

So if "-1" is the cause, then "0" is the alleged effect. If "-2" is the cause, its effect is "-1", and so on.

Now go and try the experiment, and you'll find out experientially why you were wrong. Or believe the axiomatic rule: there is no such thing as an infinitely regressive sequence of causes and effects.

I don't think I can make it clearer to you than that.

[MikeNovack]

The integers are representing a series of causes and effects. Integers by themselves or as merely themselves, don't have prerequisites: but every effect has a prerequisite cause. And we're using the integers to represent a sequence of causes and effects.

So if "-1" is the cause, then "0" is the alleged effect. If "-2" is the cause, its effect is "-1", and so on.

Now go and try the experiment, and you'll find out experientially why you were wrong. Or believe the axiomatic rule: there is no such thing as an infinitely regressive sequence of causes and effects.

I don't think I can make it clearer to you than that.

And I don't know how to make it clearer to you.

By using the integers that way to map cause and effect, you would be demonstrating that there is no first cause. Remember, if x is an integer, then predecessor(x) is an integer << axiom >>

YES --infinite regression. The integers are NOT finite.

The Natural Numbers are what you need to argue what you want (axiom: there exists a number that is not the successor of any number).

AXIOM -- do you understand what an axiom is? You are saying "there is a cause that is not the effect of any cause" (a FIRST CAUSE) but as an AXIOM.

[Immanuel Can]

By using the integers that way to map cause and effect, you would be demonstrating that there is no first cause.

The opposite: that an infinite sequence of prerequisites cannot ever start.

So we would not exist, if there were no First Cause. And causality itself would never have started.

But it has, and here we are: therefore, we know for certain there had to be a First Cause.

[Immanuel Can]

By using the integers that way to map cause and effect, you would be demonstrating that there is no first cause.

The opposite: that an infinite sequence of prerequisites cannot ever start.

So we would not exist, if there were no First Cause. And causality itself would never have started.

But it has, and here we are: therefore, we know for certain there had to be a First Cause.

But maybe, after all, there might be a way to make the point clear to you. I'm going to try.

You only exist because of your parents, correct? You're their child. You are the "effect" of their union, and they are the "cause" of your existence, no?

So far, so good?

But neither of your parents could have existed without the prior union of your grandparents. So your grandparents had to meet and unify, before your mother (and father) could exist, and both before you could exist.

Is that not true?

But before your grandparents, your great-grandparents had to meet, unify, produce your grandparents, who then could produce your parents, who then could produce you, right?

And so on, as far back as one can go, right?

But what if an infinite number of great-great-great....etc. grandparents were required to meet, marry and procreate, before you could exist? When, then, would you exist?

Think. Think carefully. I know you can see it.

There would then be an infinity of required grandparents for you...and infinity is inexhaustible, so there never would have been the prerequisite great...etc. grandparents. Lacking any starting point, and receding infinitely into the past, there would be no point at which the prerequisite relationships for the production of your existence would have been fulfilled. You would not exist.

[MikeNovack]

By using the integers that way to map cause and effect, you would be demonstrating that there is no first cause.

The opposite: that an infinite sequence of prerequisites cannot ever start.

So we would not exist, if there were no First Cause. And causality itself would never have started.

But it has, and here we are: therefore, we know for certain there had to be a First Cause.

You are arguing because the integers do not have a first integer, they do not exist? Let me remind you that Western Civilization didn't have the integers 1000 years ago, just the "natural numbers". And the "natural numbers" DO have a starting place, that singular number which is not the successor of any other number. Do you not think that influenced thinking about First Cause?

We live in a universe. It is not clear would is meant by "before"

But in any case, we are supposedly discussing religious beliefs. It is not an unreasonable religious belief that the universe is eternal (it is unclear what would be meant by "before the universe existed -- what meaning time would have". Zeno's paradox is not complete nonsense. If time is infinitely divisible (if there is no minimum time interval) there is time enough for an infinite number of causes in finite amount of time.

If T is the time from now until the "start" of the universe, A can be caused by B at T/2, B caused by C at T/4, C caused by D at T/8, etc. An infinite number of causes and effects all after T=0.

[Immanuel Can]

By using the integers that way to map cause and effect, you would be demonstrating that there is no first cause.

The opposite: that an infinite sequence of prerequisites cannot ever start.

So we would not exist, if there were no First Cause. And causality itself would never have started.

But it has, and here we are: therefore, we know for certain there had to be a First Cause.

You are arguing because the integers do not have a first integer,

No. Think, Mike, think.

The integers are just placeholders for the cause-effect sequence. It's a mathematical model of empirical reality.

Go back. Read again. This time, think.

[MikeNovack]

And if you use the INTEGERS as place holders for cause and effect (X is the cause of Y equivalent to X is the predecessor of Y) you do NOT get the equivalent of a "first cause". There is no integer that does not have a predecessor. This is unlike the "natural numbers" where by axiom there is one number not the successor of any number (aka zero)

However -- why don't you respond some in the topic "First Cause"? The reason I tried to start that is a place not to argue is there or isn't there a first cause but instead discuss now much "mileage" (if any) can be had from JUST "there is a first cause".

In other words, I argue that "X is the first cause" says much less about X than most people using the first cause argument think it does.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no integer that does not have a predecessor.

You're missing the point. It's not merely the absence of a predecessor (to use your word)...it's that THAT "predecessor" has to have a "predecessor" first, and then that "predecessor" has to have a "predecessor before that,"...and if that process is taken back to infinity, there is no place where the chain can have started.

[MikeNovack]

There is no integer that does not have a predecessor.

You're missing the point. It's not merely the absence of a predecessor (to use your word)...it's that THAT "predecessor" has to have a "predecessor" first, and then that "predecessor" has to have a "predecessor before that,"...and if that process is taken back to infinity, there is no place where the chain can have started.

PRECISELY -- there is no start to the integers just as there is no end of them. Your argument is "since no start cannot exist"? But they do exist, therefor "existence implies a start" is false.

A "chain" does not HAVE TO HAVE a "start". Whether it does or does not depends on the axioms defining the "chain". FOR EXAMPLE: a chain infinite in extension in both directions is not the only way to satisfy "each link has a successor" and "each link a predecessor". The "chain"could satisfy that "n starting place" with a FINITE number of links (in a circle).

[Immanuel Can]

Your argument is "since no start cannot exist"? But they do exist, therefor "existence implies a start" is false.

It's valid, actually.

A "chain" does not HAVE TO HAVE a "start".

A causal chain does: precisely because it contains and requires prerequisites. In a causal chain, one cannot have the next "link" until one already has the previous one. But if there are an infinite number of these prerequisites, then none of them ever takes place, because the one before has not yet taken place, because the one before that has not yet taken place, because the one before that one has not yet taken place...back into infinity.

So my argument is quite sound.

[Impenitent]

Zeno was here

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Zeno was here

-Imp

Quite so ....... IC does not seem to realize that the idea of there having to be a First Cause arose while philosophers still had difficulty with "infinity".
But really should (for the moment) not treat "First Cause" as the hill to die on. Should go to the topic I have set up to discuss First Cause, discuss what accepting that gets you (or doesn't). Where we can argue whether being the FIRST CAUSE, and JUST from that, is enough to derive any of the usual attributes of a First Cause. << or instead, must have gotten these attributes form other assumptions >>

In other words, I would argue that JUST "X is the First Cause" doesn't justify many conclusions about X, doesn't justify the usual conclusions.

[Immanuel Can]

Zeno was here

-Imp

Zeno never arrives.

[Immanuel Can]

Zeno was here

-Imp

Quite so ....... IC does not seem to realize that the idea of there having to be a First Cause arose while philosophers still had difficulty with "infinity".

No, that's not it. You've missed the point again, I'm afraid.

Nobody "has difficulty" with the idea of infinity here. But we want to do so with logical and mathematical accuracy, not with errors.

An infinite number of prerequisites means that there is no exhausting the prerequisites. Thus, the prerequisites are never fulfilled. It's called the "infinite regress" problem. And infinity is part of the demonstration.

[phyllo]

If one looks at Zeno's runner at the finish line, he had an infinite number of prerequisites which he could not fulfill. He should not be at the finish line.