The First Cause Argument

[McCulloch]

The First Cause Argument
Simply stated this argument asserts that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore there must be an ultimate cause. If the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
Is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

[Nicene]

So by defining God as being immaterial you can insert him into a position barred to material things. What does this tell us about the characteristics of God?

What does the characteristics of God have to do with his existance?

What is it about the philosophical, logical, necessity for this immaterial, uncaused cause that distinguishes it as a God to be worshipped rather than a non-personal (clinical) precursor to all the subsequent time and energy/material. I don't think this particular philosophy speaks to the issue of God's characteristics

The first cause argument attempts to answer the question of wether their is a God with a yes, not who that God is.

These competing philosophies do address the supposed character of God in that they refer to a will to have things exactly the way they are now. I would like to know what it is in logic that necessitates this strong Anthropic hypothesis?

The first cause argument may result in discussion of characteristics of God such as "why did he create?" but this is absolutely a different question from "Did he create?".

This would be true if we were to accept that energy and matter behaved the same way before the universe was created. But there's nothing to suggest that. Our current understanding is that time itself was created as a result of the creation of this universe. If there were no time before the universe began, then there is no logic flaw.

You state that "...if we were to accept that energy and matter behaved the same way before the universe was created. But there's nothing to suggest that." is because it makes logical sense to say there WAS no energy before time. Can you give any reasoning or hypothesis on energy before the beginning of the universe? God is a reasonable hyphesis to this question. All you've done in your objection to me is re-stated the problem as we don't know how or what energy was like before the beginning of time, making the assumption the universe wasn't created or at least by God.

[QED]

Hello Nicene I'm glad you've picked up on some of the points I raised.

So by defining God as being immaterial you can insert him into a position barred to material things. What does this tell us about the characteristics of God?

What does the characteristics of God have to do with his existance?

And similarly:

What is it about the philosophical, logical, necessity for this immaterial, uncaused cause that distinguishes it as a God to be worshipped rather than a non-personal (clinical) precursor to all the subsequent time and energy/material. I don't think this particular philosophy speaks to the issue of God's characteristics

The first cause argument attempts to answer the question of wether their is a God with a yes, not who that God is.

OK, yes this is certainly true, but it leaves the door wide open to arbitrary definitions of what God might be. I would hope that you would have some sympathy with the idea that it would not be reasonable to provide a modest definition of "God" as being the universe that we live in, and then saying that any observation of the universe therefore proves the existence of the God described by the Holy Bible. It is this detailed description of a personal God who plans, observes, judges and intervenes in his purposeful creation that is rejected by me and many other atheists.

So I'm looking for something in the first cause argument that tells us something about the nature of the God that it conjures-up for us. If it does not specify any of the characteristics attributed to the God of the Holy Bible then how can it be a valid argument for the existence of that particular God?

]These competing philosophies do address the supposed character of God in that they refer to a will to have things exactly the way they are now. I would like to know what it is in logic that necessitates this strong Anthropic hypothesis?

The first cause argument may result in discussion of characteristics of God such as "why did he create?" but this is absolutely a different question from "Did he create?".

So we agree. But do you also agree now that without reference to his supposed characteristics the first cause argument cannot not provide proof for the existence of the God of the Holy Bible? Some might feel like saying "so what, proof of any God is good enough reason for me to offer my worship and hope for my prayers to be answered" -- but I don't think this would constitute rational behaviour given the total absence of information about what God actually is.

(edited for readability)

[palmera]

What does the characteristics of God have to do with his existance?

Wouldn't this have everything to do with G-d's existence? How can one assert G-d's existence without stating how G-d exists? Of course there (with "how") you get into murky waters since asking the very question denies the infinite-ness of G-d-> then again, this would be a characteristic of G-d innately tied in with G-d's existence.

The first cause argument attempts to answer the question of wether their is a God with a yes, not who that God is.

If this is all the first cause argument achieves then it holds no relevancy. Caveat aforementioned, it is still better to begin with what, or with how. G-d is just a word devoid of any meaning beyond that which we give it.

The first cause argument may result in discussion of characteristics of God such as "why did he create?" but this is absolutely a different question from "Did he create?".

Yes but in asking "Did he create?" you have already assumed characteristics of G-d, namely that G-d is a "he." Beyond the semantics of "he" "she" "it" or "G-d," simply asking the question "Did" involves a doer- a what, a thing, a being or entity which cannot be separated from its actions. Certainly the two are different questions but the first cause argument's scope cannot be limited to "was?" or "did" for it implies, in-and-of-itself, a specific doer.

You state that "...if we were to accept that energy and matter behaved the same way before the universe was created. But there's nothing to suggest that." is because it makes logical sense to say there WAS no energy before time. Can you give any reasoning or hypothesis on energy before the beginning of the universe? God is a reasonable hyphesis to this question. All you've done in your objection to me is re-stated the problem as we don't know how or what energy was like before the beginning of time, making the assumption the universe wasn't created or at least by God.

Good point; but, we know that time isn't linear. We perceive time as such, but the fabric of space-time doesn't adhere to our linear constructs; it would follow then, that neither the universe, nor G-d would either. Speaking of the beginnings of the universe is beyond our ability of understanding for the time being. With the existence of other dimensions and the universe's seemingly infinite boundaries, our attempts to go back to the beginnings are like looking through the endless reflections of mirrors facing one another- one is unable to distinguish the ending... in our case, the beginning. The argument that something cannot come from nothing is an overly simplistic way to view the cosmos. The nature of energy before our specific universe was created... who knows? We don't even know full well about its characteristics now. G-d is not an assumption science is willing to make. Philosophically, such endeavors are so hard to wrestle with they they almost lose any real meaning... arrggg! Where to go from here?

[ST88]

For physical phenomena, how do you differentiate an explanation for a phenomena with the cause of a phenomena? It seems to me that when we are talking about physical phenomena an explanation necessarily provides the cause of that phenomena.

By phrasing the question this way, you are equating the terms "explanation" and "cause", when they are really very different terms. To me, "cause" implies the interaction of forces &/or objects to create changes in forces &/or objects. "Explanation" can include cause as a concept, but also includes objective/subjective description (the qualities of the force &/or object), and requires an interpreter. So a cause can have an explanation, but not the other way around without an interpreter.

No. That's an answer to the "what" question.

"What" would be a pen floating in mid-air (e.g., "What is the pen doing? It is floating 7 feet in the air. What did it do before that? It was lying on the table.")

I think I may be misunderstanding you. Here is my take on this:
WHAT: The pen is floating in mid-air
HOW: A little invisible miscreant lifted it
WHY: He is trying to freak me out

(E.g., why does gravity really exist?) That's not to say that these "metaphors" were not really stabs at answering the why question. They surely were. Objects really do have mass, and mass really does have a gravitational pull upon objects. How is that not an answer to why the moon circles the earth, or the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun? Is it the full story? No. We learned from Einstein that mass curves space, and we have yet to learn how this can best be described as a quantum phenomena. So, I reject the metaphor argument to Newtonian theories.

But even "mass" doesn't quite describe the situation. Firstly, do we know that mass curves space? We have strong evidence to suspect this. Now, how do it do that? How could a space-time that gave rise to (contained) all matter that ever was and would ever be, be warped, or even affected at all by that same matter? Shouldn't the mass of all of space-time be a part of space-time -- why would we think they are separate? Clearly, even though General Relativity accurately describes the EFFECT of the mass/gravity interaction, it is still silent on how this works.

Even if you don't buy any of the above, there are still problems that we haven't solved. I stand by my assertion that Newtonian mechanics is a metaphor. It is likely quantum forces writ large, and quantum forces might themselves be metaphors for still other interactions.

No, uncaused events are not irrational because they are uncaused, they are irrational because they are not subject to rational analysis. There is nothing further we can say about an uncaused event other than that's just the way it is. We aren't even saying it is the only possible world since the only possible world explanation would be a cause for why the event happened. I could say the same about a pen floating in mid-air. If that's just the way it is, pens arbitrarily floating in mid-air and there's nothing causing it, then this is irrational not because it's an uncaused event, it's irrational since we cannot go further in our rational inquiry in asking why it floated versus fly off into space or just sit on the table.

Thank you for that excellent clarification. You're still wrong. Using the term "rational" in this way makes anything that we can't explain irrational because it doesn't conform to current theories and paradigms. Obviously, the event is there in front of us. The fact that we can't explain it using our current language metaphors is beside the point. This doesn't make it irrational, only unexplained. "we cannot go further in our inquiry", doesn't mean that the event is beyond rationality, it means that our inquiries have so far not been sufficient.

What does possibility mean? In my mind possibility means that there is a logical order to the world which delineates some events as possible because it conforms to this logical order and some things as impossible because it does not conform to this logical order. If we reject the logical order as a requirement to defining possibility, then there are no restrictions on what is possible and what is not. This is not rational since it is not subject to rational inquiry.

If possibility means what you say is does, then what do we mean by "logical order"? What is it about all observed behavior that you find logical? I don't believe we have enough information at present to be able to say what "logical order" even means at the level you're using the term. Sure, we can say that there is a logic behind all things, but we can't quite construct the sentences. If we don't know what the rules are, we can't say what breaks them.

Hey, the Christians in the Middle Ages already knew this, and that's why many Christians encouraged scientific thought. Afterall, it was not atheists and agnostics who discovered science--some of them only tried to hijack as their own discovery years later (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan).

Oh my. I'm afraid I have you there, sir. The Ancient Greeks invented science, and there are plenty of arguments to suggest they were, if not atheist, then certanly laissez-theist. Do not forget that the rediscovery of the Greeks via Islam is what got Christians invigorated about science.

Also do not forget that the Christian scientists (small s) thought they were glorifying God to examine & discover His works. And yet it seems on hindsight that the more that these Christian scientists started discovering things, the less they needed God to explain them.

[harvey1]

By phrasing the question this way, you are equating the terms "explanation" and "cause", when they are really very different terms. To me, "cause" implies the interaction of forces &/or objects to create changes in forces &/or objects. "Explanation" can include cause as a concept, but also includes objective/subjective description (the qualities of the force &/or object), and requires an interpreter. So a cause can have an explanation, but not the other way around without an interpreter.

Hmm... Well, let me ask it this way. If a "scientist" explained to you why a pen is floating in the air, and that explanation did not include the cause for why the pen is floating in the air, would you be satisfied and think it perfectly logical that pens arbitrarily float in the air for no reason?

I think I may be misunderstanding you. Here is my take on this:
WHAT: The pen is floating in mid-air
HOW: A little invisible miscreant lifted it
WHY: He is trying to freak me out

Your "why" is a second order "why," and your how is a first order "why." It is more appropriately stated as:

WHAT?: The pen is floating in mid-air
HOW?: It just started rising and then stopped rising at 7 feet, and just kept hoving after that.
WHY? (first order): A little invisible miscreant lifted it.
WHY? (second order): He is trying to freak me out
WHY? (third order): Because she knows that it will make me bake cookies
WHY? (forth order): The little invisible miscreant likes cookies.

But even "mass" doesn't quite describe the situation. Firstly, do we know that mass curves space? We have strong evidence to suspect this. Now, how do it do that? How could a space-time that gave rise to (contained) all matter that ever was and would ever be, be warped, or even affected at all by that same matter? Shouldn't the mass of all of space-time be a part of space-time -- why would we think they are separate? Clearly, even though General Relativity accurately describes the EFFECT of the mass/gravity interaction, it is still silent on how this works.

"How" is often more mysterious than "why." For example, we might know why a measurement on a quantum particle can affect the state of its entangled twin miles away (e.g., the quantum equations say they are in superposition with each other), but we might not know how this is possible (e.g., instanteously it just happened...).

However, I think what you are failing to see is that GRT describes more than just the effects, it also tells us why space, time, energy, and matter are deeply related. It's all demonstrated in Einstein's equations why this is so. So what it doesn't answer higher order why questions, eventually a theory will come along that will allow us to do so.

Even if you don't buy any of the above, there are still problems that we haven't solved. I stand by my assertion that Newtonian mechanics is a metaphor. It is likely quantum forces writ large, and quantum forces might themselves be metaphors for still other interactions.

I suppose natural selection, gene mutations, and evolutionary theory are metaphors too?

Thank you for that excellent clarification. You're still wrong. Using the term "rational" in this way makes anything that we can't explain irrational because it doesn't conform to current theories and paradigms.

No, you are misunderstanding me. An irrational event is one that is beyond rational analysis because there is no theory in principle that will subject the event to rational analysis. For example, if the pen floating in mid-air means that no theory exists in principle to explain why it is floating, then it's an irrational act of nature.

Obviously, the event is there in front of us. The fact that we can't explain it using our current language metaphors is beside the point. This doesn't make it irrational, only unexplained. "we cannot go further in our inquiry", doesn't mean that the event is beyond rationality, it means that our inquiries have so far not been sufficient.

ST, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that a pen floating in mid-air can be rational, and yet say that there are no rational explanations in principle for its behavior. What would be rational about a pen floating in mid-air if there are no explanations (theories) in principle to explain such a thing? How do you define rationality?

If possibility means what you say is does, then what do we mean by "logical order"? What is it about all observed behavior that you find logical? I don't believe we have enough information at present to be able to say what "logical order" even means at the level you're using the term. Sure, we can say that there is a logic behind all things, but we can't quite construct the sentences. If we don't know what the rules are, we can't say what breaks them.

Logical order is simply the ultimate rules of rationality that the Universe (with a capital "U") plays by. If there are no such rules, then why do you insist that a pen floating in mid-air must be a rational event (i.e., governed by rules of rationality)? If there are no ultimate rules, then why insist that a pen must follow any rules? Again, just because we don't know the rules doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't assume such rules exist. We ought to believe we live in rationality given the success we have in making this assumption. Sure, it might be silly of us to believe that there are other minds other than ourselves, but rationality behooves us to think that there are other minds other than ourselves.

Oh my. I'm afraid I have you there, sir.

I'm not old enough to be a sir. I'm not 95 yet.

The Ancient Greeks invented science, and there are plenty of arguments to suggest they were, if not atheist, then certanly laissez-theist. Do not forget that the rediscovery of the Greeks via Islam is what got Christians invigorated about science.

Which ancient Greeks are you talking about? The only Greeks that I know of who came close to what the early Christians accomplished in terms of putting the emphasis on experimentation were the Ionians. However, I see that this is a debateable issue best reserved for another time and another thread.

[Nicene]

QED: What does that name mean?

I would hope that you would have some sympathy with the idea that it would not be reasonable to provide a modest definition of "God" as being the universe that we live in, and then saying that any observation of the universe therefore proves the existence of the God described by the Holy Bible.

I believe what you are getting at is, the first cause argument doesn't prove the character of the God, such as being Judeo-Christian and the inspiration of the Bible. I would agree with this.

It is this detailed description of a personal God who plans, observes, judges and intervenes in his purposeful creation that is rejected by me and many other atheists.

I absolutly agree that this is another question and another topic.

So I'm looking for something in the first cause argument that tells us something about the nature of the God that it conjures-up for us. If it does not specify any of the characteristics attributed to the God of the Holy Bible then how can it be a valid argument for the existence of that particular God?

It doesn't have to be an argument for the existance of that particular God.
You don't have to know the character of a being for that being to exist. Perhaps you may extrapolate something of his character from the fact that the did create, but this would be beyond the range of what the First Cause argument intends to do.

So we agree. But do you also agree now that without reference to his supposed characteristics the first cause argument cannot not provide proof for the existence of the God of the Holy Bible? Some might feel like saying "so what, proof of any God is good enough reason for me to offer my worship and hope for my prayers to be answered" -- but I don't think this would constitute rational behaviour given the total absence of information about what God actually is.

It seems in light of this last paragraph, much of what I have said above is superfluous. Yes, we are in agreement. The characteristic of the God
is not within the range of the First Cause argument. I would even go so far to say as, if the deist approach is correct, that the god created the universe is uninvolved with his creation, this is as good as being atheist. It would have no impact on my life, what's going to happen afterword and so on.

So if this is a valid hypothesis and so far there is no other that works, why
not just call yourself a deist? Unless there is a degree of atheism I am not aware of that allows for a god type being to exist and beyond that nothing else. So far, though, I am aware of only weak atheism and strong atheism.

palmera

Wouldn't this have everything to do with G-d's existence? How can one assert G-d's existence without stating how G-d exists? Of course there (with "how") you get into murky waters since asking the very question denies the infinite-ness of G-d-> then again, this would be a characteristic of G-d innately tied in with G-d's existence.

A thing can exist without your understanding of it. It can even exist without you knowing how it exists.

If this is all the first cause argument achieves then it holds no relevancy. Caveat aforementioned, it is still better to begin with what, or with how. G-d is just a word devoid of any meaning beyond that which we give it.

It is illogical to know what or how it is before you know whether it is at all.
The relavence of first cause is to demonstrate that the being is. If the being is, can then get to know something about it. What I would agree with
is, if all we can know is this about it, then the relavence of this being is certainly questionable, perhaps non-existant. However, you would then be an atheist (if that were still appropriate) through relavency of the god-being and not non-existance.

Yes but in asking "Did he create?" you have already assumed characteristics of G-d, namely that G-d is a "he." Beyond the semantics of "he" "she" "it" or "G-d," simply asking the question "Did" involves a doer- a what, a thing, a being or entity which cannot be separated from its actions. Certainly the two are different questions but the first cause argument's scope cannot be limited to "was?" or "did" for it implies, in-and-of-itself, a specific doer.

The "he" is my assumption and not the assumption of the argument. It makes no difference to the argument whether you call the god "he" or "it."
You cannot deny it's two seperate questions to say "Did God create" and
"Why God created". I certainly agree the first begs the second but they are seperate. You cannot fault or discredit the First Cause argument as it fills the role intended, "he/it did." As I said in a previous responce, it may well be you can deliniate characteristics from the fact that he created, but the first cause argument is not concerned with that. You cannot tie into the
fact of a beings existance to the legitemacy of it's character. Feel free to attempt an extrapolation of the god-beings character from his creative activities because this is as far as you can extend from the first cause argument. The character of the being is another topic.

Good point; but, we know that time isn't linear. We perceive time as such, but the fabric of space-time doesn't adhere to our linear constructs; it would follow then, that neither the universe, nor G-d would either. Speaking of the beginnings of the universe is beyond our ability of understanding for the time being. With the existence of other dimensions and the universe's seemingly infinite boundaries, our attempts to go back to the beginnings are like looking through the endless reflections of mirrors facing one another- one is unable to distinguish the ending... in our case, the beginning. The argument that something cannot come from nothing is an overly simplistic way to view the cosmos. The nature of energy before our specific universe was created... who knows? We don't even know full well about its characteristics now. G-d is not an assumption science is willing to make. Philosophically, such endeavors are so hard to wrestle with they they almost lose any real meaning... arrggg! Where to go from here?

Funny, I thought the jury was still out on the nature of time and space. In any event, it makes no difference how many universes our universe extends from. It can't be an infinite regress. We would have never reached this point if it were the case.

[QED]

QED: What does that name mean?

It could be a couple of things: if I'm losing an argument it could be Quantum Electro-Dynamics; one of our most accurate of theories when it comes to matching empirical measurement with theoretical prediction (but also a theory that is ultimately a mystery to those who devised it) or Quod Erat Demonstrandum when things are going better.

So we agree. But do you also agree now that without reference to his supposed characteristics the first cause argument cannot not provide proof for the existence of the God of the Holy Bible? Some might feel like saying "so what, proof of any God is good enough reason for me to offer my worship and hope for my prayers to be answered" -- but I don't think this would constitute rational behaviour given the total absence of information about what God actually is.

It seems in light of this last paragraph, much of what I have said above is superfluous. Yes, we are in agreement. The characteristic of the God
is not within the range of the First Cause argument. I would even go so far to say as, if the deist approach is correct, that the god created the universe is uninvolved with his creation, this is as good as being atheist. It would have no impact on my life, what's going to happen afterword and so on.

So if this is a valid hypothesis and so far there is no other that works, why
not just call yourself a deist? Unless there is a degree of atheism I am not aware of that allows for a god type being to exist and beyond that nothing else. So far, though, I am aware of only weak atheism and strong atheism.

The nuts and bolts of first cause argument is only about causality. But I think because it is bandied about mostly by theists, it introduces an unwarranted personification in the shape of some sort of being. It's pretty easy to see where this notion could have come from -- man looks proudly around at his own creative accomplishments and decides that it must take something like man to do this sort of thing -- only on a much larger scale when it comes to the world "provided" for him to live in. But this is not the certainty that it once might have seemed to be. Self Organizing Systems represent an altogether different source of creativity and order in the world and therefore classical assumptions about the nature of any causal entity are potentially highly flawed. This makes even Deism look immodest to me. So my version of atheism might be considered as reflection of this unwarranted and highly suspect assumption about the nature of such a "first cause" as expounded by the "first cause argument".

[ST88]

Hmm... Well, let me ask it this way. If a "scientist" explained to you why a pen is floating in the air, and that explanation did not include the cause for why the pen is floating in the air, would you be satisfied and think it perfectly logical that pens arbitrarily float in the air for no reason?

Assuming I knew nothing about the pen or any other effect surrounding it that would contradict the explanation, I would accept it as plausible. But I don't regard science as disseminated information from on high. There would, of course, have to be peer review.

WHAT?: The pen is floating in mid-air
HOW?: It just started rising and then stopped rising at 7 feet, and just kept hoving after that.
WHY? (first order): A little invisible miscreant lifted it.

I don't know. Is this worth discussing here? Your "How" doesn't answer the question How did this happen? It answers the question What happened?(observable effect) Do you see the difference between How did this happen?(mechanics) and Why did this happen?(motivation) It appears as if you are coming at this issue from the vangage point of the pen instead of the observer. You start off with a happenstance and separate this happenstance from the event that preceded it. I would not separate these two things, because they are both part of the same situation. It would only be acceptable to separate them if we came upon the pen in an unnatural state (again, knowing what we know about pens), and did not know what happened to put it there (e.g., from which direction did it arrive?)

I am a pen. How did I get here? I rose seven feet in the air. How did that happen? Some invisible force brought me here against my will. Why did this force do that? You would hvae to ask it.

It would appear that there might actually be two levels of HOW in your scenario and just three of WHY.

I suppose natural selection, gene mutations, and evolutionary theory are metaphors too?

Natural selection is a metaphorical construct for the process by which some genetic phenotypes are more successful at survival than others. "Selection" is not a term you would use in describing the actual process.

I believe gene mutations are actual events.

Evolution is one mother of a metaphor that is used to describe how gene mutations (& variability) can lead to natural selection.

Using the term "rational" in this way makes anything that we can't explain irrational because it doesn't conform to current theories and paradigms.

No, you are misunderstanding me. An irrational event is one that is beyond rational analysis because there is no theory in principle that will subject the event to rational analysis. For example, if the pen floating in mid-air means that no theory exists in principle to explain why it is floating, then it's an irrational act of nature.

Hogwash. If it happens, then there's a reason for it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there can be fictional irrational events, but then we couldn't discuss them hypothetically, because we would both have to agree that they are fictional. And even in a fictional construct, there is still a fictional reason why the event happened, because we, as rational beings, are authors. Rational irrationalism.

If there is no theory in principle to explain why an event could happen, then the event won't happen. If there is some vast array of Platonic theories in which it is metaphysically not possible to find such a theory, then it is a non-event. You would not be able to prove that a theory could not exist for an existing phenomenon. You could only show that there is not currently a viable theory in collective knowledge.

Sure, we can say that there is a logic behind all things, but we can't quite construct the sentences. If we don't know what the rules are, we can't say what breaks them.

Logical order is simply the ultimate rules of rationality that the Universe (with a capital "U") plays by. If there are no such rules, then why do you insist that a pen floating in mid-air must be a rational event (i.e., governed by rules of rationality)?

I'm not saying that there aren't any rules, I'm saying that we don't know what all of them are. You're saying the opposite: because we don't know all the rules, there must be someone who does. That doesn't make sense to me.

If there are no ultimate rules, then why insist that a pen must follow any rules? Again, just because we don't know the rules doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't assume such rules exist. We ought to believe we live in rationality given the success we have in making this assumption.

There is no disagreement here. The disagreement is over what this means. You seem to favor the idea that rationality is exactly what we believe it to be. I am skeptical of this notion.

Sure, it might be silly of us to believe that there are other minds other than ourselves, but rationality behooves us to think that there are other minds other than ourselves.

Chacun à son goût.

[harvey1]

ST, would you agree that causality is a requirement of a rational event? So, for example, if a pen that is nearest to you immediately began to hover 7 feet off the ground, and science studied it and came back with absolutely no rational reason why this has happened, would you consider that an example of an irrational event?... If a "scientist" explained to you why a pen is floating in the air, and that explanation did not include the cause for why the pen is floating in the air, would you be satisfied and think it perfectly logical that pens arbitrarily float in the air for no reason?

I would probably wonder what kind of a trick Penn & Teller were playing on me, question my sanity, then wonder about all things in heaven and earth, horatio. Probably in that order. So if all rational explanations were exhausted (including my brain's capacity for hallucination), then there would have to be a different sort of rational explanation. I don't consider events to be irrational, just statements and people. If it happened, there's a reason that it happened... Assuming I knew nothing about the pen or any other effect surrounding it that would contradict the explanation, I would accept it as plausible.

How do you reconcile what seems to me to be two contradictory responses here? When I began this thread asking if you thought causality was necessary to explain a pen floating for apparently no reason, you said that there's always a reason for an event. When I asked you again, after I brought out the implications to your non-theist beliefs, it seems like you are giving a different response this time. This latter answer seems to me as if you would now think that an "explanation" that does not give you a reason for an event is perfectly acceptable. Can you clarify your position? Does a floating pen require a reason (an argument that indicates the cause) for its behavior or not?

WHAT?: The pen is floating in mid-air
HOW?: It just started rising and then stopped rising at 7 feet, and just kept hoving after that. WHY? (first order): A little invisible miscreant lifted it.

I don't know. Is this worth discussing here?

I think this is the crux of our discussion. It seems your position is that science is not concerned with why an event happened, and that "why" is a metaphysical question that we can leave unanswered (or unanswerable). My argument is that this is not acceptable since if we don't expect to know the cause of an event (or even accept "explanations" that avoid explaining the cause), then we not committed to a rational understanding of nature.

Your "How" doesn't answer the question How did this happen?

Merriam-Webster's has a few definitions of "how," which meaning do you have in mind?:

1 a : in what manner or way b : for what reason : WHY c : with what meaning : to what effect d : by what name or title <how art thou called -- Shakespeare>
2 : to what degree or extent
3 : in what state or condition <how are you>
4 : at what price <how a score of ewes now -- Shakespeare>
- how about : what do you say to or think of <how about it, are you going?>
- how come : how does it happen that : WHY

I'm assuming that you are asking 1a: "in what manner or way." If you mean another definition, then let me know. I understand "how did this happen?" as meaning "in what manner or way did this happen?" If you mean 1b: "for what reason (or why) did this happen," then that's the why question that I was referring to.

It answers the question What happened?(observable effect)

There's a slight difference in meaning between, "what happened?" and "in what manner or way did this happen?" In the first case, the answer is very simple: a pen rose and started floating. In the second case, we are asking exactly in what manner or way the pen rose and started floating. This includes a description of velocity or change in velocity of the pen rising in the air. Did the pen stay level, or was it tilted as it moved up in the air? Did it twirl? We might discuss other issues that have nothing directly to do with the pen, such as were there any reflections on nearby objects? Did you notice anything unusual such as a change in temperature, lighting conditions, any static charges, etc., etc..

Do you see the difference between How did this happen?(mechanics) and Why did this happen?(motivation)

It's odd and a little fun to look up such basic words in a dictionary. Anyway, the definition of why is:

Main Entry: 1why
Pronunciation: 'hwI, 'wI
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwy, instrumental case of hwæt what -- more at WHAT
: for what cause, reason, or purpose <why did you do it?>

So, of course, if you are talking the cause of a mental intent, then a "why" question has a motivational meaning to it. However, if you are talking about physical causes to physical objects, presumably there's no mental intent behind it, we simply want to know "for what cause, reason" something happened. You said previously:

then there would have to be a different sort of rational explanation... If it happened, there's a reason that it happened

This is all that a "why" question need to pertain to. It seems you don't like the word for some reason. Why (or should I ask, for what reason?)?

It appears as if you are coming at this issue from the vangage point of the pen instead of the observer. You start off with a happenstance and separate this happenstance from the event that preceded it. I would not separate these two things, because they are both part of the same situation. It would only be acceptable to separate them if we came upon the pen in an unnatural state (again, knowing what we know about pens), and did not know what happened to put it there (e.g., from which direction did it arrive?) I am a pen. How did I get here? I rose seven feet in the air. How did that happen? Some invisible force brought me here against my will. Why did this force do that? You would hvae to ask it.

I think I'm looking at a series of events (beginning with a pen lying on a table to finding floating in mid-air) and simply asking what caused that series of events. The phenomena needs special attention because it is unexplainable (i.e., there's no answer to the "why" question).

Natural selection is a metaphorical construct for the process by which some genetic phenotypes are more successful at survival than others. "Selection" is not a term you would use in describing the actual process. I believe gene mutations are actual events. Evolution is one mother of a metaphor that is used to describe how gene mutations (& variability) can lead to natural selection.

Okay, it's helpful to recall what led us into the discussion of metaphors. I said:

So, sure, future cosmologists and particle physicists may add more theories, but this does not imply that science is not discovering truth in their explanations of these fundamental interactions. Are you suggesting that science is not a rational account of why things happen as they do?

And you said:

Heh. What we know now is that Newtonian laws are metaphors for quantum laws. They are convenient shortcuts to describe what we term as "objects" and "forces" behaving around one another on a macro level. The metaphors work nicely for the purposes which we need them to, but not in all cases. As I understand it, our initial mistake with quantum laws is the forced application of the Newtonian metaphor to these infinitesimal particles and forces. So, yes, the metaphors still work, but the mechanics behind them have still not been discovered. Wht happens when they are discovered, and things start to fall into place?

So, let me get back to the point that I was making. Since evolutionary theory is a mother of metaphors, does this imply that science is not discovering truth in their explanations of evolutionary theory in some approximate sense? If so, then why did you disagree with my position when I said nothing to suggest that I thought Newtonian theory was the end of the theoretical details that needed to be provided (e.g., as gene mutation is to evolutionary theory)? What exactly were you disagreeing with if you accept metaphors as approximate truth (assuming that you do)?

No, uncaused events are not irrational because they are uncaused, they are irrational because they are not subject to rational analysis. There is nothing further we can say about an uncaused event other than that's just the way it is. We aren't even saying it is the only possible world since the only possible world explanation would be a cause for why the event happened. I could say the same about a pen floating in mid-air. If that's just the way it is, pens arbitrarily floating in mid-air and there's nothing causing it, then this is irrational not because it's an uncaused event, it's irrational since we cannot go further in our rational inquiry in asking why it floated versus fly off into space or just sit on the table.

You're still wrong. Using the term "rational" in this way makes anything that we can't explain irrational because it doesn't conform to current theories and paradigms.

No, you are misunderstanding me. An irrational event is one that is beyond rational analysis because there is no theory in principle that will subject the event to rational analysis. For example, if the pen floating in mid-air means that no theory exists in principle to explain why it is floating, then it's an irrational act of nature.

Hogwash. If it happens, then there's a reason for it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there can be fictional irrational events, but then we couldn't discuss them hypothetically, because we would both have to agree that they are fictional. And even in a fictional construct, there is still a fictional reason why the event happened, because we, as rational beings, are authors. Rational irrationalism.

I'm not following you here. Are you agreeing with me now that you better understand what I meant by the phrase "rational analysis"? Prior to my clarification you said I was wrong. Please read this again and let me know if we agree (so we don't spend a number of posts finding out that you did or didn't agree with this key passage):

No, uncaused events are not irrational because they are uncaused, they are irrational because they are not subject to rational analysis. There is nothing further we can say about an uncaused event other than that's just the way it is. We aren't even saying it is the only possible world since the only possible world explanation would be a cause for why the event happened. I could say the same about a pen floating in mid-air. If that's just the way it is, pens arbitrarily floating in mid-air and there's nothing causing it, then this is irrational not because it's an uncaused event, it's irrational since we cannot go further in our rational inquiry in asking why it floated versus fly off into space or just sit on the table.

I'm not saying that there aren't any rules, I'm saying that we don't know what all of them are. You're saying the opposite: because we don't know all the rules, there must be someone who does. That doesn't make sense to me.

That's not my argument. I'm saying that rational minds ought to only accept a belief that is based on rationality. This means that we ought to reject an uncaused event since it is not given to rational inquiry, even in principle.

You seem to favor the idea that rationality is exactly what we believe it to be. I am skeptical of this notion.

Well, the term must mean something otherwise why even commit to the notion of rationality if we have no idea what it means?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

ST, would you agree that causality is a requirement of a rational event? So, for example, if a pen that is nearest to you immediately began to hover 7 feet off the ground, and science studied it and came back with absolutely no rational reason why this has happened, would you consider that an example of an irrational event?...

If there is a pen that is floating in mid air, there is a logical, natural explanation. If there is no natural explanation, the pen is not hovering in mid air, this being a construct of your imagination. Any non natural explanation of it's hovering ability would also be nothing but constructs of your imagination.

There is no "First cause" explanation outside of the natural laws extant at the moment of the Big Bang. Those laws may have been wildly different than those now operative and we may never know everything about how the universe began but that in no way requires or proves the existence of outside influence. Whether the natural conditions make the birth of the universe likely or extremely unlikely, it happened, and all the evidence shows the universe follows natural physical laws with no supernatural explanations needed. It organizes itself following those natural laws. Nothing(even your pen) can violate those natural laws, thus my first paragraph.

The only non-rational occurences all take place in the only other area we know exists outside of reality, our minds and imaginations. It is there that theistic concepts can have the only reality they can ever have, in the world of fantasy and illusion.

Grumpy 8)