Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Impenitent]

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.

he was probably Russian

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

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.

Precisely, just as we do with mathematics.

Your First Prerequisite exists by AXIOM.

There is NO problem with "infinite regress" unless you have an axiom declaring that. Nothing to "start" the progression is ASSUMING it had to have a start instead of always being. There is nothing wrong that the Integers have no "start". The Natural Numbers do have a start in 0, which was stated to exist and not to have a predecessor (was not the successor of any number) BY AXIOM.

I have absolutely no problem with you accepting as an AXIOM "there exists something (the First Cause) that is not caused by anything else" to start causality. I simply don't believe you (or anybody else) can derive that from just the definition of causality. YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So? << you don't think you need to rule out "infinite regression" by AXIOM? >>

My aim here (and in the topic devoted to "First Cause", where does (just) that lead) is NOT to consider religious beliefs false, just to deny they are other than religious beliefs (not things we can believe true because of logic). The situation is the same even if you have First Cause (you aren't going to be able to derive things like "the First Cause" is omnipotent, cares about the effect, etc. << go to the topic "First Cause"" >>

PLEASE NOTE -- the ancients were not so formally careful with logic. Thus an ancient problem like "cannot construct the trisection of an angle" would be defining "construct" as "using a series of steps with only compass and straight edge" but NOW we would more carefully define "construct" as "using a finite series of steps with only compass and straight edge".

Axiom of First Cause ------ There exists X, a cause such that no Y is the cause of X ---- You can't DERIVE that. You need it or an equivalent.

[Immanuel Can]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

[MikeNovack]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

IC, you just do not understand formal mathematics of the last ~150 years.

Do you REALLY mean to say "the Integers do not exist" (because infinite if BOTH directions)

LOOK at your second supposed point ---- you got "could not possibly exist" by taking AS AN AXIOM "could not always have existed". The only problem with the "infinite progression of cause and effect" is IF the universe did not always exist. You are saying "here, I can prove the universe did not always exist, had a start, because if the universe didn't always exist it had a start". DUH ......??????

[Immanuel Can]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

IC, you just do not understand formal mathematics of the last ~150 years.

Well, somebody certainly doesn't.

Do you REALLY mean to say "the Integers do not exist"

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

[MikeNovack]

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

You don't understand Zeno's paradox.

I am NOT misunderstanding "causal chains". Or that if X is the cause of Y, then must be "before" Y in the temporal sense. What you are misunderstanding is "how much "before" is available. You think there NECESSARILY isn't enough "before", that you would run out of "before". There is enough "before" for an infinite chain EVEN IN A FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME (assuming time is indefinitely divisible). .

At one second before the big bang, B causes A, at 1/2 second before C causes B, at 1/4 second before, D causes C, ..... at 1/2**n second before R causes Q .............. The cause is ALWAYS before the effect. There is always time in which the cause can exist before the effect. Why do you believe you would run out of instants when this would not be so?

And that is with a finite total amount of "before". Why are you assuming the past doesn't go back indefinitely. No limit to the total amount of "before".

My point is that you ARE making such an assumption, your First Cause is an AXIOM. I am not objecting to you choosing this axiom (making this assumption), just to your claim that it is NOT an axiom (that you can derive it from JUST "cause and effect").

This section is "Philosophy of Religion". I am taking a philosophical position, that our religious beliefs cannot be derived without axioms.

[Immanuel Can]

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

You don't understand Zeno's paradox.

Yeah, I do: and it has nothing to do with the argument.

You think there NECESSARILY isn't enough "before", that you would run out of "before".

The opposite: there is no "before," because "before prerequisites recede infinitely. Nothing starts the chain of prerequisites, so none are ever met.

Sorry...I guess you're just not going to get it. But you'll still be wrong, of course. There is no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. It simply never runs out of things that have to happen before anything else can happen. That's what infinite regress means.

[MikeNovack]

And you don't get formal reasoning.

Let's lay that aside for a moment. You can think you derived First Cause and I think you needed/had to use an axiom for it, but either way, let's say you have First Cause, which you can call God.

Let's consider the attributes you think "God created the universe" (THIS universe) lets you derive.

God is omnipotent.
God is omniscient.

God created the universe by intent.
God cares about the universe.

I've grouped those in pairs for a reason.

Consider the first pair. Do you believe you can derive them from (just) God created the (this) universe. How? I see how you could conclude God sufficiently powerful to create THIS universe because did so. Conclude that God has sufficient knowledge to create THIS universe, because did so. BUT, how do you derive enough power and knowledge to create ANY universe? To have created THIS universe differently than done, add features, leave features out. REMEMBER -- I am not suggesting God not omnipotent or omniscient but am suggesting that you can't derive those JUST from the creation of THIS universe. If you can't derive them, two more axioms.

Now consider the second pair. Does God having created THIS universe mean "by intent"? Does it imply God cares about the universe? Compare with this example, a sculptor, with hammer and chisel, and a large rock. The sculptor intends to create a statue and proceeds by placing the chisel and striking blow. The result was a chip of the rock flies off, a chip was created. If asked, the sculptor would say of course I am aware that I am creating chips of stone in the process of creating this statue. They of necessity happened as I created this statue, but I had no particular intent to create chips of stone. But while I care about this statue I am creating, I don't care at all about those ships of stone. AGAIN -- I am not suggesting God did not create this universe by intent or that God doesn't care about it. Only that from JUST God created the universe you can't derive either of those. Two more axioms.

I am NOT saying anybody's religious beliefs are wrong, just that they cannot be derived and so it's not going to be possible to convince anybody else by the use of logic. You can lay out your axioms, argue for their reasonableness, but being axioms, you can't prove them.

[Immanuel Can]

And you don't get formal reasoning.

Well, somebody doesn't, I suppose. But there's no more that can be done with that.

Let's lay that aside for a moment. You can think you derived First Cause and I think you needed/had to use an axiom for it, but either way, let's say you have First Cause, which you can call God.

Let's consider the attributes you think "God created the universe" (THIS universe) lets you derive.

Consider the first pair. Do you believe you can derive them from (just) God created the (this) universe.

You've missed the argument yet again.

The argument proves the existence of a First Cause. That's all it does, and all it was designed to do. For more information, we would need additional arguments. We would need to have accepted the necessity of the First Cause argument, and have moved on to "What sort of First Cause would it be?"

So the words you cite and attempt to criticize are not related to the argument being made. They're also invented terms, a kind of "best effort" of some theologians to get at particular concepts about the divine nature, and so can be misleading if not properly explained. They're not inspired words, and not Biblical terms, so nothing is gained or lost by arguing over them.

And you forgot the third that is usually proposed: "omnipresent." But that, too, is a human term, and one in need of nuancing.

[MikeNovack]

The argument proves the existence of a First Cause. That's all it does, and all it was designed to do.

Back to this again. The argument proves First Cause by having a suitable axiom. You seem to think you can just rule "infinite regression" impossible without an axiom because the alternative seems unreasonable/impossible. But OK, I was just checking if you were going to claim those attributes could be derived from first cause. Since you don't claim that not a lot of need to continue EXCEPT when doing comparative religions if you try to use something like "infinite regression" impossible WITHOUT recognizing that's by axiom.

For example, the cosmology: The Earth rests on the back of a turtle (is supported by a turtle). A turtle is supported by a turtle. << So there is a last turtle, the one that supports the Earth, but no first turtle -- it's turtles all the way down >>

I have no idea why you assume I simply don't understand your argument. WHY do you assume I have no background in formal logic and mathematics? You don't even know what my degree(s) might be in. Plenty of mathematicians and scientists believe in God (or gods) but they do not believe they are basing their beliefs upon being able to derive First Cause without axioms.

BTW -- Doesn't always require an infinite number to have no start or end.
A) Let C be a set of c's.
B) There exists at least one c
C) Let there be a relation L such that for every c, L(c) exists c1 (is a member of C)
D) Let there be a relation R such that for every c, R(c) exists c1 (is a member of C)
E) For every c, L(c) is not the same as c and R(c) not the same as c.
F) For every c, L(c) is not the same as R(c)
1) How many c's are there? (least number, maximum number)
2) What is the "shape" of C?
3) If there are an infinite number of c's,what does that tell you the "shape"? If a finite number what does that tell you?
4) If axiom "E" were removed, how does that change your answer to the first question? << what is it ruling out >> How about "F"?
5) If we wanted there to be "first" or "last" c, what axioms would have to be changed/added?

A model might help. Think of C as a set of children, L and R as holding by left hand and right hand respectively. Try answering the questions. You can imagine these children holding hands in a circle or a line.

[Immanuel Can]

The argument proves the existence of a First Cause. That's all it does, and all it was designed to do.

Back to this again.

Hey, you went there. You asked if I thought I could deduce something about the nature of God from the First Cause argument. You can't, except for the fact that a First Cause is necessary.

Now, after that, you can start to discuss what sort of a First Cause that might be, and there are other arguments that clarify that. But nothing is useful until you realize the certainty of the necessity of some First Cause.

But here's what you said:

I was just checking if you were going to claim those attributes could be derived from first cause.

You seem to think you can just rule "infinite regression" impossible

I didn't "rule" anything. I just pointed out the mathematical, empirical and even personal demonstrations of the truth that there is no such thing as an infinite regress of causes.

And there isn't. And logically, you can know there isn't. It depends on nothing but your own ability to use mathematics, or reason, or observation. All three lead to the same conclusion.

I have no idea why you assume I simply don't understand your argument.

Oh, that's easy. Because it's actually incontrovertible. It can be shown mathematically, empirically and rationally. If you understood it, I'm sure you'd believe it.

WHY do you assume...

I make no such assumption. But it's difficult to understand, if you have a background in these things, why the First Cause argument is hard for you to see. I don't know the cause: it could be incomprehension, or it could be disingenuousness, or it could be obstinacy. I don't guess. I just marvel that you persist in saying you don't see it.

[MikeNovack]

The argument proves the existence of a First Cause. That's all it does, and all it was designed to do.

I realize that you just don't grasp formal description. That you have proven a First Cause exists using axioms you don't see you are using. One stating if x = C(y) and y = C(z) then x = C(z) << defining "causal chain" so that it excludes "rings" Your notion of "before" >> and another stating finite << excluding infinite regression >> In other words, don't se that when you say "infinite regression is impossible" you are stating an axiom. When you say no thing is its own cause, that's an axiom too << for all things, x not = C(x) >>

OK, try this. From your "proof" that a First Cause exists (just what you have so far) try to prove that only ONE First Cause exists. Do you not see you are going to need another axiom. You have "proved" that there is one causal chain beginning with a first cause, but not that there are not several independent causal chains each headed by a First Cause. See example:

FC1 = C(a) a = C(b) b = C(c) and FC2 = C(x) x = C(y) y C(z) << more than one chain of causality >>

WHERE is everything not a First Cause has a cause and a causal chain starts with a First Cause being violated?

What is the axiom you choose to prevent this?

[Will Bouwman]

... a First Cause is necessary.

Sweeping aside first term undergraduate, ultra Cartesian sceptic possibilities, and plonking for some version of yeah, there is a world with people in it, then yes, there is some event beyond which we cannot see - a first cause of everything that we can see.

Now, after that, you can start to discuss what sort of a First Cause that might be, and there are other arguments that clarify that.

Assuming one is not determined to believe otherwise, we might be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence, that the first cause is what we call the big bang. I have no idea what caused the big bang, though. One version is that, before the big bang, there was only an aspatial, atemporal thingy called God who was everywhere, knew everything and could do anything, but since there was nowhere, nothing to know and nothing to do, God blew itself up out of boredom. The truth is that we simply do not know what, if anything, happened before the big bang. We can count time back to the big bang, we can also measure the space we can see, so the space and time of our visible universe were created at the big bang; but we cannot know that space and time, in and of themselves, were created at the big bang. If they have always existed, and good luck proving they haven't, then actually yeah, you can have an infinite regress.

[Immanuel Can]

...try to prove that only ONE First Cause exists.

Let's try the alternative, and see if it's even tenable.

We know that at least one First Cause had to exist. That much is mathematically confirmed. The causal chain could not have commenced without it.

Now, Occam cautions us not to assume excessive explanations. His rule is that when a simple explanation will answer all the same questions, a more complex one is likely to be wrong. That's a fairly modest rule, if we understand it, so let's observe it.

My argument is that there was at least one First Cause. Yours is that there plausibly could have been more or many. Prima facie, my argument is in a better position relative to Occam's Rule. So the burden of proof falls on the one supposing a multiplicity.

That would be you. Having seen that at least one First Cause is necessary, make your case for more...

[Immanuel Can]

... a First Cause is necessary.

Sweeping aside first term undergraduate, ultra Cartesian sceptic possibilities, and plonking for some version of yeah, there is a world with people in it, then yes, there is some event beyond which we cannot see - a first cause of everything that we can see.

Well, and modestly, we can say that even if this world were to be some sort of delusion or film played out before our eyes, like Plato's shadows on a cave wall, we would still be reasonable to say that something had to cause the shadows. So either way, be the world reliable or not, we're back into a causal chain, and the infinite regress problem returns.

Now, after that, you can start to discuss what sort of a First Cause that might be, and there are other arguments that clarify that.

Assuming one is not determined to believe otherwise, we might be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence, that the first cause is what we call the big bang. I have no idea what caused the big bang, though.[/quote] Right. Good point. And if the BB had a "cause," as current science seems to insist, and that maybe the cause was something like gasses free floating...somewhere...we're back into a causal chain. How were the gasses there, and where were they, and what caused them to explode at that particular moment?

One version is that, before the big bang, there was only an aspatial, atemporal thingy called God who was everywhere, knew everything and could do anything, but since there was nowhere, nothing to know and nothing to do, God blew itself up out of boredom.[/quote]
Well, "blew itself up" would be a misleading wording, wouldn't it? Whatever that Thing or Person did, it may have happened fast or slow...who knows what rules even time itself had before time existed? But "blew up" implies disordering...and disordering would imply pre-existing order to be "blown up," which would make us go back to the causal chain.

But what was produced was not "disorder" but rather, overwhelmingly, order. Physical laws were produced...and materials...and space...and planets...and a world with life on it...and you and me. How aptly, then, can the words "blew itself up" describe what we're now looking at? Not very well, right? Blow ups produce disorder...we observe order.

The Bible calls it "creation." That seems a much better metaphor for what we observe than does "blew up."

The truth is that we simply do not know what, if anything, happened before the big bang. We can count time back to the big bang, we can also measure the space we can see, so the space and time of our visible universe were created at the big bang; but we cannot know that space and time, in and of themselves, were created at the big bang.

Well, try to conceive of time without using any two points, chronological or spacial, to do it. Can you? I can't. I find my mind immediately either taking time as a given, or else projecting imaginary points (in space or morphing) between which time can form the interstice.

So there's a lot that's hard to conceive there: but once there are two points of some kind, it becomes thinkable. It seems to me, therefore, that our best guess -- and that's admittedly what it is -- is that time came into being with materials (points) and space, synchronous with when they did.

If they have always existed, and good luck proving they haven't, then actually yeah, you can have an infinite regress.

Well, if we do that, then all we have done is renamed the First Cause and the Uncaused Causer. If space and time always existed...and we would have to add into that, materials or points...then there's still an Uncaused Causer...we've just called it time-space-materials.

Now it's on us to explain how time-space-materials can be rationally viewed as a causal agency, and as once likely to produce the sort of ordered universe in which we find ourselves. Now, there's a task for which we're going to need "good luck."