The Causation Argument

[steve_bank]

Like many others who've already opined in this thread I just don't get how someone can fail to grasp the difference between saying "the universe began about 13 billion years ago" and "nothing existed before the universe just popped into existence about 13 billion years ago."

My body began to exist about 61 years ago. If I had never seen another person and did not know how I came into existence I could study myself (once I had developed the cognitive ability to do so) and discover the effects of aging. Perhaps I'd realize that during my younger days I was much smaller and grew into a full adult size over time. This might lead me to infer that the further back in time I go the smaller I would have been. Having gotten that far I'd have to realize that perhaps there was a point at which I was just a single, tiny speck. I would then be stuck with theorizing as to how it came to be that this speck existed.

This is a hypothetical scenario that may illustrate the problem for some. Without data to extrapolate beyond that time I'd be stuck in a stalemate situation like real cosmology is. We can't watch universes begin to form so we just don't have the means to analyze how it happens. We can only theorize. But in order for a theory to gain acceptance in the scientific community it really has to be consistent with what we can observe about the universe. All of the universe, not just this tiny mote floating in the backwashes of the Milky Way Galaxy.

A god who gets all butthurt if you put your penis in the wrong hole doesn't make for a sound origin theory. It might make sense if there was nothing in the universe other than a few thousand people running around in a terrarium fighting over property rights. It makes zero sense in light of what we know today about the actual universe.

I think that if they acknowledge anything remotely counter to their interpretation it brings crashing down their whole belief system.

Your body began in the very distant past. The BB leading to the atoms that comprise your body....could not pass up the opening.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Like many others who've already opined in this thread I just don't get how someone can fail to grasp the difference between saying "the universe began about 13 billion years ago" and "nothing existed before the universe just popped into existence about 13 billion years ago."

My body began to exist about 61 years ago. If I had never seen another person and did not know how I came into existence I could study myself (once I had developed the cognitive ability to do so) and discover the effects of aging. Perhaps I'd realize that during my younger days I was much smaller and grew into a full adult size over time. This might lead me to infer that the further back in time I go the smaller I would have been. Having gotten that far I'd have to realize that perhaps there was a point at which I was just a single, tiny speck. I would then be stuck with theorizing as to how it came to be that this speck existed.

This is a hypothetical scenario that may illustrate the problem for some. Without data to extrapolate beyond that time I'd be stuck in a stalemate situation like real cosmology is. We can't watch universes begin to form so we just don't have the means to analyze how it happens. We can only theorize. But in order for a theory to gain acceptance in the scientific community it really has to be consistent with what we can observe about the universe. All of the universe, not just this tiny mote floating in the backwashes of the Milky Way Galaxy.

A god who gets all butthurt if you put your penis in the wrong hole doesn't make for a sound origin theory. It might make sense if there was nothing in the universe other than a few thousand people running around in a terrarium fighting over property rights. It makes zero sense in light of what we know today about the actual universe.

There isn't any religion without religious language. You've got to have that glossary of worthless woo to trigger the limbic response. So it's not unusual that a language cult would knowingly or unknowingly try to shoehorn more common parlance into having religious significance. It's the semantic equivalent of numerology.

 

[steve_bank]

Every so often in my engineering carrier I'd get a reality check realizing the vast majority of people have no idea about what is routine form m.

What are simple thins to some of us here, like Newton's Laws Of Motion.

For me rezoning is something that is developed by experience. Christians are emersed in theist joargon and metaphors over their life, and frame everything through it.

For me I am conditioned to see all things as systems of matter and energy.

 

[steve_bank]

Plato argues, that the first cause of motion initiated all the motion in the universe. He called this principle, 'soul' or 'life'. Further, any cause that was the ultimate cause must itself be unmoved by anything else–an unmoved mover or, in Aristotle's parlance, a prime mover.

An ancient argument predating Christianity. It is a logical argument predating modem thermodynamics as a perspective.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are causally dependent or contingent, that the universe (as the totality of contingent things) is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, that the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact possibly has an explanation, or that the universe came into being. From these facts philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists.
On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe. In what follows we will first sketch out a very brief history of the argument, note the two basic types of deductive cosmological arguments, and then provide a careful analysis of examples of each: first, two arguments from contingency, one based on a relatively strong version of the principle of sufficient reason and one based on a weak version of that principle; and second, an argument from the alleged fact that the universe had a beginning and the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of causes. In the end we will consider an inductive version of the cosmological argument and what it is to be a necessary being

1. Historical Overview
Although in Western philosophy the earliest formulation of a version of the cosmological argument is found in Plato’s Laws, 893–96, the classical argument is firmly rooted in Aristotle’s Physics (VIII, 4–6) and Metaphysics (XII, 1–6). Islamic philosophy enriches the tradition, developing two types of arguments. Arabic philosophers (falasifa), such as Ibn Sina (c. 980–1037), developed the argument from contingency, which is taken up by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) in his Summa Theologica (I,q.2,a.3) and his Summa Contra Gentiles (I, 13). Influenced by John Philoponus (5th c) (Davidson 1969) the mutakallimūm—theologians who used reason and argumentation to support their revealed Islamic beliefs—developed the temporal version of the argument from the impossibility of an infinite regress, now referred to as the kalām argument. For example, al-Ghāzāli (1058–1111) argued that everything that begins to exist requires a cause of its beginning. The world is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena. Since such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity because an actual infinite is impossible, the world must have had a beginning and a cause of its existence, namely, God (Craig 1979: part 1). This version of the argument enters the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74) in his Sentences (II Sent. D.1,p.1,a.1,q.2).
Enlightenment thinkers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, reaffirmed the cosmological argument. Leibniz (1646–1716) appealed to a strengthened principle of sufficient reason, according to which “no fact can be real or existing and no statement true without a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise” (Monadology, §32). Leibniz uses the principle to argue that the sufficient reason for the “series of things comprehended in the universe of creatures” (§36) must exist outside this series of contingencies and is found in a necessary being that we call God. The principle of sufficient reason is likewise employed by Samuel Clarke in his cosmological argument (Rowe 1975: chap. 2).

Although the cosmological argument does not figure prominently in Asian philosophy, a very abbreviated version of it, proceeding from dependence, can be found in Udayana’s Nyāyakusumāñjali I,4. In general, philosophers in the Nyāya tradition argue that since the universe has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. We could admit an infinite regress of causes if we had evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the non-dependent cause. Many of the objections to the argument contend that God is an inappropriate cause because of God’s nature. For example, since God is immobile and has no body, he cannot properly be said to cause anything. The Naiyāyikas reply that God could assume a body at certain times, and in any case, God need not create in the same way humans do (Potter 1977: 100–07).
The cosmological argument came under serious assault in the 18th century, first by David Hume and then by Immanuel Kant. Hume (1748) attacks both the view of causation presupposed in the argument (that causation is an objective, productive, necessary power relation that holds between two things) and the Causal Principle—every contingent being has a cause of its existence—that lies at the heart of the argument. Kant contends that the cosmological argument, in identifying the necessary being, relies on the ontological argument, which in turn is suspect. We will return to these criticisms below.
Both theists and nontheists in the last part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century generally have shown a healthy skepticism about the argument. Alvin Plantinga concludes “that this piece of natural theology is ineffective” (1967: chap. 1). Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an impossibility, no cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning (1991: chap. 7). (However, Gale seems to have changed his mind and in recent writings proposed and defended his own version of the cosmological argument, which we will consider below.) Similarly, Michael Martin (1990: chap. 4), John Mackie (1982: chap. 5), Quentin Smith (Craig and Smith 1993), Bede Rundle (2004), Wes Morriston (2000, 2002, 2003, 2010), and Graham Oppy (2006: chap. 3) reason that no current version of the cosmological argument is sound. Yet dissenting voices can be heard. Robert Koons (1997) employs mereology and modal and nonmonotonic logic in taking a “new look” at the argument from contingency. In his widely discussed writings William Lane Craig marshals multidisciplinary evidence for the truth of the premises found in the kalām argument. Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss propose a new version based on a so-called weak principle of sufficient reason that leads to a finite God that is not omnibenevolent, and Richard Swinburne, though rejecting deductive versions of the cosmological argument, proposes an inductive argument that is part of a larger cumulative case for God’s existence.
There is quite a chance that if there is a God he will make something of the finitude and complexity of a universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe…can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. (1979: 131–32)
In short, contemporary philosophers continue to contribute increasingly detailed and complex arguments on both sides of the debate.

 

[steve_bank]

4. Argument for a Non-contingent Cause
Thomas Aquinas held that among the things whose existence needs explanation are contingent beings that depend for their existence upon other beings. Richard Taylor (1992: 84–94) discusses the argument in terms of the world (“everything that ever does exist, except God, in case there is a god”, 1992: 87) being contingent and thus needing explanation. Arguing that the term “universe” refers to an abstract entity or set, William Rowe rephrases the issue, “Why does that set (the universe) have the members that it does rather than some other members or none at all?” (Rowe 1975: 136). Put broadly, “Why is there anything at all?” (Smart, in Smart and Haldane, 1996: 35; Rundle 2004). The response of defenders of the cosmological argument is that what is contingent exists because of the action of a necessary being.

4.2 Objection 1: The Universe Just Is
Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation (premise 2); it just is. Russell, following Hume (1779), contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe needs no explanation; it is “just there, and that’s all” (Russell 1948 [1964]: 175). This view was reiterated by Hawking (1987: 651).
Swinburne replies that
uniqueness is relative to description. Every physical object is unique under some description,… yet all objects within the universe are characterized by certain properties, which are common to more than one object.… The objection fails to make any crucial distinction between the universe and other objects; and so it fails in its attempt to prevent at the outset a rational inquiry into the issue of whether the universe has some origin outside itself. (Swinburne 2004: 134–35)
We don’t need to experience every possible referent of the class of contingent things to be able to conclude that a contingent thing needs a cause. “To know that a rubber ball dropped on a Tuesday in Waggener Hall by a redheaded tuba player will fall to the ground”, I don’t need a sample that includes tuba players dropping rubber balls at this location (Koons 1997: 202).
Morriston (2002: 235) responds that although it is true that we don’t need to experience every instance to derive a general principle, the universe is a very different thing from what we experientially reference when we say that things cannot come into existence without a cause. Tuba players are not “anything remotely analogous to the ‘initial singularity’ that figures in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe”.
Defenders of the argument respond that there is a key similarity between the universe and the experienced content, namely, both tuba players (and the like) and the cosmos are contingent. Given our experience with contingent particulars, we do not need to experience every member of a contingent cosmos to know that it is caused.
But why should we think that the cosmos is contingent? Defenders of the view contend that if the components of the universe are contingent, the universe itself is contingent. Russell replies that the move from the contingency of the components of the universe to the contingency of the universe commits the Fallacy of Composition, which mistakenly concludes that since the parts have a certain property, the whole likewise has that property. Hence, whereas we legitimately can ask for the cause of particular things, to require a cause of the universe or the set of all contingent beings based on the contingency of its parts is mistaken.
Russell correctly notes that arguments of the part-whole type can commit the Fallacy of Composition. For example, the argument that since all the bricks in the wall are small, the wall is small, is fallacious. Yet it is an informal fallacy of content, not a formal fallacy. Sometimes the totality has the same quality as the parts because of the nature of the parts invoked—the wall is brick (composed of baked clay) because it is built of bricks (composed of baked clay). The universe’s contingency, theists argue, resembles the second case. If all the contingent things in the universe, including matter and energy, ceased to exist simultaneously, the universe itself, as the totality of these things, would cease to exist. But if the universe can cease to exist, it is contingent and requires an explanation for its existence (Reichenbach 1972: chap. 5)……

4.4 Objection 3: The Principles of Causation and of Sufficient Reason Are Suspect
Critics of the cosmological argument contend that the Causal Principle or, where applicable, the broader Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) that underlies versions of the argument, is suspect. As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality (1748: IV). Neither can an argument for the application of the Causal Principle to the universe be drawn from inductive experience. Even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole (Mackie 1982: 85)…..

 

[steve_bank]

6. The Kalām Cosmological Argument
A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the kalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith 1993: chap. 1):
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
This argument has been the subject of much recent debate, only some of which we can summarize here. (For greater bibliographic detail, see Craig and Sinclair 2009.)

6.2 Impossibility of an Actual Infinite
In defense of premise 2, Craig develops both a priori and a posteriori arguments. His primary a priori argument is
An actual infinite cannot exist.
A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.

That is a miscue of the word infinite. Infinite mean not numerically quantifiable. In cosmology it means a unversed with no bounds. Pick a direction and you can travel an endless path. The number of meters you travel will be uncountable, so we say infinite. Semantics.

The two premises are faulty, therefore the conclusion is invalid.

 

[steve_bank]

So we know who Craig is.

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, apologist, and author. He is Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University and Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University), . Craig has updated and defended the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus. His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All. Craig has formally debated the existence of God (and related topics such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus) with many prominent figures, including: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence M. Krauss, Lewis Wolpert, Antony Flew, Sean Carroll, Sir Roger Penrose, Peter Atkins, Bart Ehrman, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Paul Draper, Gerd Lüdemann and A. C. Grayling. William Lane Craig established and runs the online apologetics ministry ReasonableFaith.org.

Craig uses infity as theists and oters argue on the science forum from ignorance.

Mathematically an infinity can not exist. It can be approached asymptotically but never reached.

Infinity is a mathematical abstraction not reality. There is nothing in science that precludes an infinite universe meaning uncountable paramours. Typical theist coopting of misunderstood science.

Same with quantum mechanics. QM is probabilistic not deterministic, that does not negate causation.

What about an infinite boundless god?

 

[Lion IRC]

...As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality

Not only is the Causal Principle ontologically sound, (properly basic), it is also confirmed by observation.

Even a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe would entail causation by way of an infinite regress of (preceding) prior causes - physical causes. (One thing leads to another.)

Contra this, would be a universe or 'metaphysic' in which uncaused stuff just happens mysteriously, inexplicably, spontaneously. Such a scenario would render science redundant and meaningless.
And in the absence of science/reason/verificationism, what do you think would take its place?

These are the available cosmological menu options;

1. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior necessary inevitable events. (Perpetual motion)

2. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior spontaneous random events. (Woo)
2a. Uncaused - came into existence spontaneously and remains in existence by inexplicable random chance. (Woo)

3. Caused - Came into existence by a necessary, inevitable (contingent) prior cause. (Impersonal agent)

4. Caused - Came into existence by volition/fiat. (Personal agent)

 

[Wiploc]

The two premises are faulty, therefore the conclusion is invalid.

You mean unsound, not invalid.

The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) is usually invalid too, since proponents are so prone to equivocating on the meanings of "begin" and "universe."

 

[Lion IRC]

Hitchens vs Turek

...You mentioned Edwin Hubble and the way that he saw the red-light shift and saw that the universe was not just expanding, but expanding very fast, away from itself, that the Big Bang had not stopped. Lawrence Krauss, great physicist, probably the next Nobel Prize winner for—has noticed that most peoples’ assumption was wrong, that though this expansion was taking place, it was thought, the rate of speed of expansion must surely be declining. People still think in Newtonian terms in this way. No, says Krauss. He’s pointed out and now it’s agreed by all. No, the Hubble rate of the red-light shift is increasing.

The universe is dissipating itself at high speed and the speed is getting greater.

What does this mean? Well, it answers the question of why is there something instead of nothing? Because now we have something.

We’re all here because there’s something, and nothing is coming right for us.

Very soon a physicist wouldn’t be able to tell the Big Bang had ever taken place, so far sprung apart will the whole system be.

http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com/

 

[skepticalbip]

...As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality

Not only is the Causal Principle ontologically sound, (properly basic), it is also confirmed by observation.

Even a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe would entail causation by way of an infinite regress of (preceding) prior causes - physical causes. (One thing leads to another.)

Contra this, would be a universe or 'metaphysic' in which uncaused stuff just happens mysteriously, inexplicably, spontaneously. Such a scenario would render science redundant and meaningless.
And in the absence of science/reason/verificationism, what do you think would take its place?

These are the available cosmological menu options;

1. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior necessary inevitable events. (Perpetual motion)

2. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior spontaneous random events. (Woo)
2a. Uncaused - came into existence spontaneously and remains in existence by inexplicable random chance. (Woo)

3. Caused - Came into existence by a necessary, inevitable (contingent) prior cause. (Impersonal agent)

4. Caused - Came into existence by volition/fiat. (Personal agent)

The difference between scientific and religious cosmological models is that ALL the science hypotheses are offered as possibilities because the modelers accept that there are too many unknowns (Your reasons for saying they are wrong only demonstrates your ignorance of science). While the religious cosmological model is accepted as 'ultimate truth' by the religious using typical theistic 'logic'... "science doesn't know so any shit I claim to be true has to be true."

 

[bilby]

...As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality

Not only is the Causal Principle ontologically sound, (properly basic), it is also confirmed by observation.

Even a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe would entail causation by way of an infinite regress of (preceding) prior causes - physical causes. (One thing leads to another.)

Contra this, would be a universe or 'metaphysic' in which uncaused stuff just happens mysteriously, inexplicably, spontaneously. Such a scenario would render science redundant and meaningless.
And in the absence of science/reason/verificationism, what do you think would take its place?

These are the available cosmological menu options;

1. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior necessary inevitable events. (Perpetual motion)

2. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior spontaneous random events. (Woo)
2a. Uncaused - came into existence spontaneously and remains in existence by inexplicable random chance. (Woo)

3. Caused - Came into existence by a necessary, inevitable (contingent) prior cause. (Impersonal agent)

4. Caused - Came into existence by volition/fiat. (Personal agent)

Options 1 & 2 are difficult to pick between, because we simply don't know enough.

But we do know that 3 & 4 aren't options, because they don't address the question.

The question is "Was there always something, or did stuff spontaneously start existing from nothing?".

Your options 1 & 2 are the only possible answers that address the question.

Saying "Stuff spontaneously started exiting, from something (ie a creator)" is incoherent - IF we presume a creator, we have still not addressed the original question.

A creator is not only not THE answer to the question of origins; It's not even AN answer.

It's just replacing a difficult and perhaps unanswerable question about the things we observe, with an equally difficult and perhaps unanswerable question about something we just imagined.

 

[Lion IRC]

"We do not know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable."
GK Chesterton.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's just replacing a difficult and perhaps unanswerable question about the things we observe, with an equally difficult and perhaps unanswerable question about something we just imagined.

Magic needs no beginning. The tooth fairy has no beginning.

 

[bilby]

"We do not know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable."
GK Chesterton.

But we do know enough about the question of origins to know that it cannot be answered by assuming the existence of a creator. To do so is to just kick the can down the road.

Maybe the universe always existed in some form. Maybe it just started to exist from nothing.

You could hypothesise that there was an intelligent being that created everything else; But:

a) This doesn't address the question, because now we need to determine whether our hypothetical intelligent being always existed in some form, or whether it started to exist from nothing - So your attempt to answer has achieved nothing; and

b) There's absolutely no reason to think that such a being ever existed; and

c) IF we accept that the first 'thing' to spontaneously exist (or the thing that has existed forever) was intelligent, then you have not only failed to answer the question of the origin of reality, but have also rendered intelligence as sufficiently simple as to arise in a single step (or to have always existed) - which we observe not to be the case in those parts of reality to which we do have access.

So, you are making up an entity that we cannot detect, and which you must believe acts contrary to the way everything we observe acts, in order to fail to address the question you're supposed to be considering.

That's not just pointless; It's pointless and stupid.

 

[steve_bank]

...As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality

Not only is the Causal Principle ontologically sound, (properly basic), it is also confirmed by observation.

Even a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe would entail causation by way of an infinite regress of (preceding) prior causes - physical causes. (One thing leads to another.)

Contra this, would be a universe or 'metaphysic' in which uncaused stuff just happens mysteriously, inexplicably, spontaneously. Such a scenario would render science redundant and meaningless.
And in the absence of science/reason/verificationism, what do you think would take its place?

These are the available cosmological menu options;

1. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior necessary inevitable events. (Perpetual motion)

2. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior spontaneous random events. (Woo)
2a. Uncaused - came into existence spontaneously and remains in existence by inexplicable random chance. (Woo)

3. Caused - Came into existence by a necessary, inevitable (contingent) prior cause. (Impersonal agent)

4. Caused - Came into existence by volition/fiat. (Personal agent)

ontologically sound does in no ay ensure truth in reality. Logicaly valid syslogisms can be conrryted that hgave no connection to reality.

Meaning philosophically is hopelessly self referential. There are no possible absolute definitions.

Sound reasoning doe not always mean a valid or supportable conclusion. An argument can be sound and wrong.

That is why modern science evolved out of Natural Philosophy. Words were no longer sufficient. Science and technology as well rests on a set of ambiguous definitions not subject to interpretation tied to physicals reality, Systems International.

Ontology is metaphysics. Relizon is metaphysics with a deity.

 

[steve_bank]

1. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior necessary inevitable events. (Perpetual motion)

2. Uncaused - past eternal, infinite regress of prior spontaneous random events. (Woo)
2a. Uncaused - came into existence spontaneously and remains in existence by inexplicable random chance. (Woo)

3. Caused - Came into existence by a necessary, inevitable (contingent) prior cause. (Impersonal agent)

4. Caused - Came into existence by volition/fiat. (Personal agent)

1. Perpetual motion as referenced in thermodynamics refers to a bounded system. A car, refrigerated, or the Earth can be bounded. LOT refers to energy and mass crossing the boundary and to processes in the boundary. Turn off a refrigerator and it will go to ambient temperature. Turn off the Sun same for the Earth. Draw a bubble around the Earth. As the bubble goes to infinity entropy and perpetual motion no longer applies, no matter and energy can be lost. Form changes as we see today around us. That is my view on an eternal universe.

2 Random events such as quantum evets are not uncaused. We can not predict exactly when a causation occurs, only a probability of when. Empirical fact. The problem here again is a lack of understanding of modern science by theists and philosophers.

3 This is usually linked to a philosophical debate as to whether or not a human life is predetermined. In quantum physics there have been two schools of thought. Whether or not the apparent probabilistic nature of physics at the atomic scale is a measurement problem with the universe being deterministic or there is an uncertainty inherent in reality. Regardless of what is true it does not preclude ab infinite universe.

4 This is just a way of saying god did it without saying god. The more modern version is Intelligent Design with the volition of a designer, AKA god..

 

[Tharmas]

There's a word for it!

Just thought I'd throw in some random thoughts.

I’ve posted before on different threads that there seems to be an evolutionary drive for people to find patterns in the environment – to figure out cause and effect and be able to predict effects when necessary. This skill has an obvious survival advantage. However this same drive can provide false returns, when patterns are only imagined. It turns out there is a name for this phenomenon: apophenia.

Maybe this is old news to many, but the word is new to me and I’m glad to know it. I discovered it while reading The Art of Statistics by David Spiegelhalter.

He says: “There is even a word for this tendency to construct reasons for a connection between what are actually unrelated events – apophenia – with the most extreme case being when simple misfortune or bad luck is blamed on others’ ill-will or even witchcraft.”

He elaborates:

It is not just scientists who value discoveries – the delight in finding something new is universal. In fact it is so desirable that there is an innate tendency to feel we have found something when we have not. We have previously used the term apophenia to describe the capacity to see patterns where they do not exist, and it has been suggested that this tendency might even confer an evolutionary advantage – those ancestors who ran away from rustling in the bushes without waiting to find out if it was definitely a tiger may have been more likely to survive.

But while this attitude may be fine for hunter-gatherers, it cannot work in science…

I believe this phenomenon, this tendency to see patterns of causality where there are non, has a major significance with relation to the origins of religion, from animism to intelligent design.

Incidentally, and in the context of apophenia, Spiegelhalter throws out this gem: “Causation is a deeply contested subject, which is perhaps surprising as it seems rather simple in real life…” (my emphasis). He elaborates on that, of course.

Seems like these observations have application to a number of discussions on this board.

 

[Lion IRC]

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

 

[Tharmas]

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

Of course there are patterns. I don't see what your point is.