A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[Immanuel Can]

P1: IF there were an infinite regress of causes, there WOULD BE no present event.
P2: But there IS a present event,
C: ERGO the past was NOT an infinite regress (i.e. an eternal chain) of previous causes.

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events. So P1 entails P2.
Therefore conclusion bullshit.

Your objection is false. But there is the necessity of both and attitude of goodwill and logic on your part to show it. Your message above eloquently shows that neither is present at the moment.

So I wish you well, but shall trouble myself no further on your account.

[ken]

You are literally unable to read the words on the page because of your own assumptions.

I think wtf has summed you up nicely immanuel can.

I say, You are literally unable to see the ridicoulness of what you, yourself, are writing on the pages becauae of your own assumptions and beliefs.

[ken]

immanuel can you TRY TO argue the same way fiveredapples does. That is you each look for others with the same beliefs and assumptions as you each have, then you want to work with the others in finding and/or formulating some thing, any thing, that will back up and support your own distorted beliefs.

In your case you want others to accept and "see the necessity of some uncaused cause". In the other case fiveredapples is looking for those that believe torturing human beings is morally permissible. Instead of either of you providing some examples, proof and/or evidence for what you each say and believe is true you both desparately seek help. If either of you do not have a sound, valid argument and/or provide some examples, proof and/or evidence, then I would suggest to STOP believing and assuming what you are.

Now if you want us to see the necessity of some uncaused cause give us some reason at all to accept that there is actually a 'necessity'.

I will try again, WHY does there 'necessarily' HAVE TO BE an uncaused cause?

[Immanuel Can]

In your case you want others to accept and "see the necessity of some uncaused cause".

Not at all. I'm not asking for them to "accept" anything. I'm asking them to do maths and logic, and convince themselves. If they believe in causality, and if they believe in maths and logic, and if they're thinking about the cosmology problem, then quite simply, they're going to know -- whether I'm around or not.

Instead of either of you providing some examples, proof and/or evidence for what you each say...

I did: I gave you mathematical and logical reasons. Since cosmology depends on these things, and you say you don't regard them as "proof" of anything, I'm at a loss as to how you will ever know anything about cosmology.

[uwot]

...I gave you mathematical and logical reasons. Since cosmology depends on these things...

Er, no. While they are useful tools, ultimately cosmology depends on evidence.

[Hobbes' Choice]

P1: IF there were an infinite regress of causes, there WOULD BE no present event.
P2: But there IS a present event,
C: ERGO the past was NOT an infinite regress (i.e. an eternal chain) of previous causes.

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events. So P1 entails P2.
Therefore conclusion bullshit.

Your objection is false. But there is the necessity of both and attitude of goodwill and logic on your part to show it. Your message above eloquently shows that neither is present at the moment.

So I wish you well, but shall trouble myself no further on your account.

Demonstrate the logic of P1.
I do not think you can.

[uwot]

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events.

Yup. Can't argue with that. What I find so ridiculous about Mr Can's logic (Ha!) is that by his reckoning, if god has been around for eternity, there was an infinite amount of time before he created the universe, therefore he couldn't have created the universe.

[ken]

Instead of either of you providing some examples, proof and/or evidence for what you each say...

I did: I gave you mathematical and logical reasons. Since cosmology depends on these things, and you say you don't regard them as "proof" of anything, I'm at a loss as to how you will ever know anything about cosmology.

But I have already shown how what you gave as "mathematical " and "logical" reasons is wrong. YOUR logic does NOT work.

What you "know" about cosmology is God created it, and that is what you believe, am I right?

[Hobbes' Choice]

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events.

Yup. Can't argue with that. What I find so ridiculous about Mr Can's logic (Ha!) is that by his reckoning, if god has been around for eternity, there was an infinite amount of time before he created the universe, therefore he couldn't have created the universe.

It is almost like Mr. Can can't read. Or if he can read, it's exactly like he cannot comprehend.

[wtf]

Not quite. "Everything that begins to happen must have a cause." That will do.

This phrase snapped something into focus for me.

I've seen Craig's phrasing and it's always seemed a little off to me. What does "begin to exist" mean? For one thing it seems very binary. A thing either exists or not. But maybe things come into existence gradually? Your degree of existence is a bell curve perhaps. Very low degree of existence, then you gradually come into existence, then you hit peak existence and continue the downhill journey back to a very low degree of existence. That's as sensible model as any.

[I hope my substituting exist for happen is ok here ... if a thing happens, some event exists. I take it I can use both words].

But Craig is saying that a thing "begins to exist" meaning that there is an exact moment on the boundary of existence/nonexistence. A topological boundary, cleanly delineated. That itself is a rather arbitrary assumption.

For the moment I will accept it. Now I understand "begins to exist" or "begins to happen" like this:

P1. In the universe of things that exist, there are two mutually exclusive classes: Those things that began to exist, and those that have always existed.

P2. Any thing that begins to exist must have a cause.

Now we see that the "begins to ..." preface to "exist" actually entails an entirely separate premise. That things that exist may be so categorized. We might even call the things that have always existed, eternal; and the things that "began to exist," the temporal. I have the feeling that's Craig's intention.

So NOW, we apply the logic (which is still completely wrong) that P2 implies that there must be a first cause. The logic is falsified by the the negative integer model. As it happens this is a standard objection to Craig. The OP mentioned it obscurely in his initial post, referring to *ω. In set theory that notation stands for the reverse order type of the natural numbers.

Be that as it may, I now see the Craigean logic. If you accept (wrongly) that P2 implies that there must be a first cause, then a thing that has always existed, ie that did not ever "begin to exist," need not be caused.

That explains the logic of saying that everything has a cause yet God may be uncaused. Now I understand Craig's intent. It is not the case that everything has a cause. Only things that "begin to exist" must have a cause. And if we (wrongly) conclude that there must be a first cause, then that first cause is necessarily a thing that did NOT "begin to exist"; it's a thing that ALWAYS existed.

That is the meaning of the mysterious phrase, "begins to exist." The principle of Causality is not meant to apply to all things that exist, only those things that begin to exist. There are other things that have always existed, to which Causality does not apply.

I wonder what is the evidence for that!!

[thedoc]

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events.

Yup. Can't argue with that. What I find so ridiculous about Mr Can's logic (Ha!) is that by his reckoning, if god has been around for eternity, there was an infinite amount of time before he created the universe, therefore he couldn't have created the universe.

You seem to confuse 'eternity' with an infinite amount of time or 'forever'. 'Eternity' and 'Forever' are not the same. Forever is an infinite amount of time but in eternity there is no time.

[Immanuel Can]

I've seen Craig's phrasing and it's always seemed a little off to me. What does "begin to exist" mean? For one thing it seems very binary.

It is. But some things are genuinely binary. As they say, "You can't be 'a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.'"

A thing "exists" or it does not. If it "exists" a little bit, then it "exists." If it does not, then it does not at all. That's simply definitional of what it means to say a thing "exists" at all. It's also basic logic, as first explained to us by Aristotle.

But Craig is saying that a thing "begins to exist" meaning that there is an exact moment on the boundary of existence/nonexistence. A topological boundary, cleanly delineated. That itself is a rather arbitrary assumption.

No, I would say not. And in fact, not just Aristotle but every logician afterwards thinks so. Without the distinctive meaning of the idea of "existence" no predications at all are possible.

For the moment I will accept it. Now I understand "begins to exist" or "begins to happen" like this:

P1. In the universe of things that exist, there are two mutually exclusive classes: Those things that began to exist, and those that have always existed.

P2. Any thing that begins to exist must have a cause.

This is good.

Now we see that the "begins to ..." preface to "exist" actually entails an entirely separate premise. That things that exist may be so categorized. We might even call the things that have always existed, eternal; and the things that "began to exist," the temporal. I have the feeling that's Craig's intention.

Correct, I would say.

Be that as it may, I now see the Craigean logic. If you accept (wrongly) that P2 implies that there must be a first cause, then a thing that has always existed, ie that did not ever "begin to exist," need not be caused.

Right. Except he's not wrong.

That explains the logic of saying that everything has a cause yet God may be uncaused. Now I understand Craig's intent. It is not the case that everything has a cause. Only things that "begin to exist" must have a cause.

Right.

And if we (wrongly) conclude that there must be a first cause, then that first cause is necessarily a thing that did NOT "begin to exist"; it's a thing that ALWAYS existed.

Correct.

That is the meaning of the mysterious phrase, "begins to exist." The principle of Causality is not meant to apply to all things that exist, only those things that begin to exist. There are other things that have always existed, to which Causality does not apply.

Right.

I wonder what is the evidence for that

At least three things. First, the absolute certainty that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Once we know that pretending things can start to happen without causes, we know that such a chain must begin somewhere.

Secondly, we do seem to know some things that appear to exist independent of the contingent, time-bound, empirical world. Numbers seem to be one of those things. "2" is still "2" at all times and places (no matter what symbol we use for it, whether 2 or the Roman number II, or .. or whatever).

Thirdly, we can observe empirically that the universe is not infinitely old. Entropy, even at an extremely slow rate...say only 1/1,000,000th of its' actual, measurable rate today...would mean that in an infinite universe, we would have attained heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Likewise, we can observe things like the Red Shift Effect that demonstrate our universe is linear and expanding, not cyclical or contracting. So the scientific observations we have square with a "caused" universe.

That'll do for now, I'm sure. I'm glad, though, that we've broken through to the key point. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Immanuel Can]

I've seen Craig's phrasing and it's always seemed a little off to me. What does "begin to exist" mean? For one thing it seems very binary.

It is. But some things are genuinely binary. As they say, "You can't be 'a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.'"

A thing "exists" or it does not. If it "exists" a little bit, then it "exists." If it does not, then it does not at all. That's simply definitional of what it means to say a thing "exists" at all. It's also basic logic, as first explained to us by Aristotle.

But Craig is saying that a thing "begins to exist" meaning that there is an exact moment on the boundary of existence/nonexistence. A topological boundary, cleanly delineated. That itself is a rather arbitrary assumption.

No, I would say not. And in fact, not just Aristotle but every logician afterwards thinks so. Without the distinctive meaning of the idea of "existence" no predications at all are possible.

One can argue over whether or not X or Y "exists." But if one imagines one can flex the very meaning of "exists," one gets into illogic right away, or else owes a greater explanation. For example, I might say "unicorns exist" (meaning, "exist in the human mythological catalogue") and "unicorns do not exist" (in the sense of material, factual existence), and have both being true at once. That's possible because of amphiboly -- the double-meanings of some words.

But as soon as we both accept and stipulate that "exists" (for purposes of our conversation) means only one of these definitions or the other, its opposite is ruled out 100%. Mythical unicorns exist or don't. Factual unicorns exist or don't. There's no "kind of existing" in either case.

That's binary, yes: it's also inescapable.

For the moment I will accept it. Now I understand "begins to exist" or "begins to happen" like this:

P1. In the universe of things that exist, there are two mutually exclusive classes: Those things that began to exist, and those that have always existed.

P2. Any thing that begins to exist must have a cause.

This is good.

Now we see that the "begins to ..." preface to "exist" actually entails an entirely separate premise. That things that exist may be so categorized. We might even call the things that have always existed, eternal; and the things that "began to exist," the temporal. I have the feeling that's Craig's intention.

Correct, I would say.

Be that as it may, I now see the Craigean logic. If you accept (wrongly) that P2 implies that there must be a first cause, then a thing that has always existed, ie that did not ever "begin to exist," need not be caused.

Right. Except he's not wrong.

That explains the logic of saying that everything has a cause yet God may be uncaused. Now I understand Craig's intent. It is not the case that everything has a cause. Only things that "begin to exist" must have a cause.

Right.

And if we (wrongly) conclude that there must be a first cause, then that first cause is necessarily a thing that did NOT "begin to exist"; it's a thing that ALWAYS existed.

Correct.

That is the meaning of the mysterious phrase, "begins to exist." The principle of Causality is not meant to apply to all things that exist, only those things that begin to exist. There are other things that have always existed, to which Causality does not apply.

Right.

I wonder what is the evidence for that

At least three things. First, the absolute certainty that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Once we know that pretending things can start to happen without causes, we know that such a chain must begin somewhere.

Secondly, we do seem to know some things that appear to exist independent of the contingent, time-bound, empirical world. Numbers seem to be one of those things. "2" is still "2" at all times and places (no matter what symbol we use for it, whether 2 or the Roman number II, or .. or whatever).

Thirdly, we can observe empirically that the universe is not infinitely old. Entropy, even at an extremely slow rate...say only 1/1,000,000th of its' actual, measurable rate today...would mean that in an infinite universe, we would have attained heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Likewise, we can observe things like the Red Shift Effect that demonstrate our universe is linear and expanding, not cyclical or contracting. So the scientific observations we have square with a "caused" universe.

That'll do for now, I'm sure. I'm glad, though, that we've broken through to the key point. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Arising_uk]

What I don't get is that if there can be an uncaused cause why can't the Universe be one of these?

If IC and the rest argue that it's because of the BBT pointing to a beginning for this universe and that because inside this universe there is causality then they appear to be misunderstanding what is being said by the BBT as for causality there has to be time and it's not the case that the BBT says that the universe came into being in a big-bang in time, i.e. the 'space' that we call the universe exploding into something but that spacetime came into being and that there is nothing 'outside', i.e. an uncaused cause, so why aren't they happy with having one of these?

Incidentally, I think(but could be wrong) that there is also another possibility and that is that 'spacetime' is wrong(ish) and that this universe is just a 'galaxy universe' and 'the universe' is way bigger than what we call the universe and we are just limited to the light-cone of this 'galaxy universe' at present(maybe forever).

[thedoc]

What I don't get is that if there can be an uncaused cause why can't the Universe be one of these?

If IC and the rest argue that it's because of the BBT pointing to a beginning for this universe and that because inside this universe there is causality then they appear to be misunderstanding what is being said by the BBT as for causality there has to be time and it's not the case that the BBT says that the universe came into being in a big-bang in time, i.e. the 'space' that we call the universe exploding into something but that spacetime came into being and that there is nothing 'outside', i.e. an uncaused cause, so why aren't they happy with having one of these?

Incidentally, I think(but could be wrong) that there is also another possibility and that is that 'spacetime' is wrong(ish) and that this universe is just a 'galaxy universe' and 'the universe' is way bigger than what we call the universe and we are just limited to the light-cone of this 'galaxy universe' at present(maybe forever).

No reason at all, Vacuum genesis is one hypothesis that uses this concept as a basis. It's all a matter of what each individual chooses to believe.