Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:14 pm
Does that mean it came into existence without being caused, or that it didn't come into existence, because it was always there?
It can only mean the second. The first suggestion doesn’t even make sense.
Okay, so it is possible for something to have always existed, then?
We don’t know that. All our experience is with existence being contingent…that is, as creatures that once did not exist. And since science pertains only to physical reality, it doesn’t even purport to be able to tell us that. But mathematics is one of the only things that might have always applied: perhaps 2+2 has always equaled 4, even when we didn’t know about that. That would seem most plausible, would it not?
And maths tells us there had to be a First Cause, because a sequence of prerequisites that’s infinite never begins, by definition. So if that mathematical equation described the origins of the universe, we would not be here.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:47 pm
It can only mean the second. The first suggestion doesn’t even make sense.
Okay, so it is possible for something to have always existed, then?
We don’t know that.
So we don't know if it's possible for the thing you call, "first cause", to have always existed?
And maths tells us there had to be a First Cause, because a sequence of prerequisites that’s infinite never begins, by definition. So if that mathematical equation described the origins of the universe, we would not be here.
I don't know that maths tells us there had to be a First Cause, but supposing it did, the question of what that first cause was remains open, it would seem to me.
If first cause denotes something intentional as if its effect were innately predetermined, then there is no such thing as first cause. Nothing in physics allows for it or includes it. It is merely our shorthand for tracking or joining one concept to another.
As Bertrand Russell wrote already in 1912...
The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” Causal laws, he claimed, “tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful.”
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 5:23 pm
So we don't know if it's possible for the thing you call, "first cause", to have always existed?
We know it’s impossible for no First Cause to have existed. That’s what we can say for sure.
Being sure about things seems to come remarkably easy to you.
When all the facts, including mathematics, are on one’s side, one is wise to base one’s conclusions on that, I would say. But not all people operate that way: many prefer knee-jerk relativism…particularly when the factual winds blow strongly contrary. They just lapse into “well, nobody knows, and nobody can know,” instead of paying attention to what they really ought to know, and in fact, do know, in their most honest moments of reflection.
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:27 pm
If first cause denotes something intentional as if its effect were innately predetermined, then there is no such thing as first cause. Nothing in physics allows for it or includes it. It is merely our shorthand for tracking or joining one concept to another.
As Bertrand Russell wrote already in 1912...
The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” Causal laws, he claimed, “tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful.”
The word "cause" often suggests the intentional act of a conscious agent. If you murder someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, there are hundreds of other necessary conditions). Similarly, "cause" can mean a handle we can manipulate. Germs "cause" disease because we can avoid or kill them -- but we know that some people exposed to germs never sicken, while others do. For experimental scientists, the variable is the "cause", although other conditions may be necessary for the effect.
So "first cause" suggests the intentional act of a conscious agent, simply because that is how we use the word "cause". Otherwise, "first coincidence" would be more appropriate.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 5:43 pm
We know it’s impossible for no First Cause to have existed. That’s what we can say for sure.
Being sure about things seems to come remarkably easy to you.
When all the facts, including mathematics, are on one’s side, one is wise to base one’s conclusions on that, I would say.
That's all very well for you to say. When facts get in your way, you simply change the facts, but we are not all able to do that. Some of us are handicapped by an inconvenient compulsion to stick to the truth. I don't think you realise the difficulties being honest puts in your way; you've probably never experienced it yourself.
But not all people operate that way: many prefer knee-jerk relativism…particularly when the factual winds blow strongly contrary. They just lapse into “well, nobody knows, and nobody can know,”
You mean me, don't you?
instead of paying attention to what they really ought to know, and in fact, do know,
Yes, there are certainly things that every member of this forum ought to know, and that many of us do know.
