Proofs... So what?

[Nirvana-Eld]

After some thinking I am willing to accept that there must have been a first cause that initiated the series of events we call existence. I think that this is the underlying substratum of causuality. Here the problem. So what? I do not see the connection from "there must have been a first cause" to "this is a being which we all call God" (quod omnes dicunt Deum). I see the point of the First Cause Idea more as pointing to a natural process, not a Christian God and or the classic "Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God". There seems to be no connection.

I would like the proponents of the First Cause Argument who believe in the God of the three "O's" to logically make the connection between a process and a God. Civility is a must! I just glanced through a thread by a "killingevolution" ( ) and I would like this thread to be cleaner. 8)

[QED]

After some thinking I am willing to accept that there must have been a first cause that initiated the series of events we call existence.

Without wishing to cloud the issue I wonder if you are aware of the Hartle-Hawking Quantum Cosmology which provides an unconditional probability for the existence of our universe? Quentin Smith takes up the implications for atheism and the non-existence of god in case you're interested.

But I agree with you wholeheartedly that nothing about the world we live in implies a supernatural origin and would also like to understand how people go about making this connection.

[harvey1]

After some thinking I am willing to accept that there must have been a first cause that initiated the series of events we call existence. I think that this is the underlying substratum of causuality. Here the problem. So what? I do not see the connection from "there must have been a first cause" to "this is a being which we all call God" (quod omnes dicunt Deum). I see the point of the First Cause Idea more as pointing to a natural process, not a Christian God and or the classic "Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God". There seems to be no connection.

Once you start unravelling the causal chain to the beginning we have three alternatives:

1) The causal chain is a non-ending chain of causes bringing about effects, which are just the effects of earlier causes

2) The causal chain terminates with an uncaused event, and this uncaused event is a brute fact

3) The causal chain terminates with a basic set of principles which are true because there's no possible way that they could be untrue

Both (1) and (2) are irrational, and in your opening post you are willing to consider (1) false. (2), however, should also be considered false on the basis that we ought to treat all irrational "answers" as false. Therefore, (3) is the only possible correct answer.

If (3) is the case, and logical necessity L requires there to be something X, then X must satisfy L. How can you have X satisfying L without the Universe having some form of inherent understanding? Satisfaction in this case is a semantic term since L is a logical statement and that logical statement must be compared to a real world state. The Universe must inherently understand that X satisfies L. Of course, we can label it something else, but that doesn't change the property needed by the Universe for X to satisfy L.

In addition, L and X must be satisfied whereever they can possibly be satisfied, which is throughout spacetime. That requires this property of the Universe to be omniscient. Nothing can prevent L and X from being satisfied if they must necessarily be satisfied, otherwise it would be a violation of logic (i.e., something else would be doing the satisfying and that something else would either be the satisfaction property of the Universe or it would mean the Universe is inconsistent and illogical). So, it must have omnipotence. Lastly, there is no knowledge that exists which this property of the Universe would not know since knowledge requires this satisfactory property to be knowledge. Hence, it is also omniscient.

This property of the Universe could only be the divine omni-three God.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Before we go any further Harvey could you please elaborate on how #2 is irrational but #3 isn't? I don't see the distinction you obviously do. A deeper explanation would be appreciated.

Now to #3

Satisfaction in this case is a semantic term since L is a logical statement and that logical statement must be compared to a real world state. The Universe must inherently understand that X satisfies L.

I fail to see where semantics plays any part in satisfaction of a syllogistic analogy, and why the Universe is required to "understand" this semantic satisfaction.

I'm sorry but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I missed the point of a lot of things. An simpler "lay-man's" version would help me better understand your point.

[QED]

Good luck with getting the "explanation" you seek from Harvey. Whenever I try following the logic he's presented here I run into lots of familiar sounding words but used in ways that simply don't make any sense to me. I think your blade might be sharper than mine so I'll look forward to the way you dissect his argument.

[harvey1]

Good luck with getting the "explanation" you seek from Harvey. Whenever I try following the logic he's presented here I run into lots of familiar sounding words but used in ways that simply don't make any sense to me. I think your blade might be sharper than mine so I'll look forward to the way you dissect his argument.

I do provide an explanation to you, QED. Usually this is as far as you go in trying to understand what I wrote. (Btw, this what gives me the constant impression that you simply prefer to think the way that you think regardless whether it is right or wrong. That's why I keep bringing up Romans 1.)

[harvey1]

Before we go any further Harvey could you please elaborate on how #2 is irrational but #3 isn't? I don't see the distinction you obviously do. A deeper explanation would be appreciated.

Sure. As a metaphor, think of the Earth that is "just there," and we ask the Hindu wise man why the Earth can exist supported there like that. He says that it is supported by a turtle. We being clever ask how that turtle is supported. He replies wryly that it's turtles all the way down. Now, that answer relies on an irrational explanation since the cause of Earth being supported has been fully transferred to the turtle. That is, if the turtle has a real cause for being supported, then the real cause for Earth being supported is the turtle beneath it supporting it. However, if the turtle beneath it doesn't have support, then neither does the Earth. "Turtles all the way down" does not answer why any one turtle is supported because we are always told to keep going down, but we never arrive at the cause. Therefore, this is irrational since there is no rational explanation that can ever be used to say why Earth is standing supported. All there is is a passing of the buck, and not one situation explains why the Earth or a turtle is being supported. If we finally do get to that the last turtle, and then there's no rational reason why it is supported, then this irrational response is also useless at providing a rational reason why Earth is supported. As a further illustration of this, imagine an infinite set of integers along an infinite line going in both directions. If we ask why "8" comes after "4" at a certain part of the line, we are told that because "4" comes after "9," and "9" comes after "6." But, we are never given a reason why these things are so. Therefore, there is no rational reason why "8" comes after "4." It's just an irrational fact of the matter. If the line is only infinite in one direction, the first integer on the line does not give us any reason why all the other numbers are what they happen to be. So, the selected integers is all an irrational process (i.e., there's no reason for any integer).

Now, of course this is silliness. We know approximately why certain events happen. We know, for example, that you posted your reply in response to mine. There is a cause which doesn't just refer to some infinite turtle all the way down.

Now to #3

Satisfaction in this case is a semantic term since L is a logical statement and that logical statement must be compared to a real world state. The Universe must inherently understand that X satisfies L.

I fail to see where semantics plays any part in satisfaction of a syllogistic analogy, and why the Universe is required to "understand" this semantic satisfaction.

If you have a situation where possibility must determine actuality, then you have conceivable actualities which are not actually possible. Let's call those conceivable worlds as CW's and real possible worlds as PW's. Now, in order for CW's not to be PW's, there must be a reason. However, if there is no reason for a CW being a PW, then CW is a PW. A reason is an explanation. Therefore, without an explanation you have CW=PW, and with an explanation you have CW not = PW. An explanation is a cognitive term. An explanation only exists if the explanation is interpreted correctly. If there is no interpretation of the explanation, then the explanation doesn't actually exist. Therefore, without a Mind property inherent in the Universe, there can be no reason, and therefore we cannot achieve (3) since there's no way to distinguish conceivable worlds (CW's) from actual possible worlds (PW's), even in principle.

[QED]

Good luck with getting the "explanation" you seek from Harvey. Whenever I try following the logic he's presented here I run into lots of familiar sounding words but used in ways that simply don't make any sense to me. I think your blade might be sharper than mine so I'll look forward to the way you dissect his argument.

I do provide an explanation to you, QED. Usually this is as far as you go in trying to understand what I wrote. (Btw, this what gives me the constant impression that you simply prefer to think the way that you think regardless whether it is right or wrong. That's why I keep bringing up Romans 1.)

I said your explanations don't make sense to me. I've been trying to understand them for some time now and I quite simply don't. For example I described how the physical shape of LEGO bricks dictate laws about the possible configuration of LEGO pieces. This was in response to your exclusive claim that mind must be inherent in the universe to satisfy reason. I can see, and understand how material interactions can satisfy and be responsible for laws which dictate what is possible and what is not. But I do not know where the concept of a disembodied mind comes from. It seems like a majorly unscientific concept.

[harvey1]

I said your explanations don't make sense to me. I've been trying to understand them for some time now and I quite simply don't. For example I described how the physical shape of LEGO bricks dictate laws about the possible configuration of LEGO pieces. This was in response to your exclusive claim that mind must be inherent in the universe to satisfy reason. I can see, and understand how material interactions can satisfy and be responsible for laws which dictate what is possible and what is not.

Do you remember my response to that issue? The LEGO pieces are organized by the laws of physics, otherwise the atoms will go flying off into all directions. If we trace the cause back, we come to those 3 alternatives that I mentioned to Nirvana. (3) entails an interpretation which rules out your materialist version, and as I said above, it is the only rational possibility.

But I do not know where the concept of a disembodied mind comes from. It seems like a majorly unscientific concept.

If you don't understand the argument, then it's important to raise your hand in class. My argument is that if you need explanations, then you need an inherent mind. An explanation without a mind that understands it as an explanation is gibberish.

[QED]

Do you remember my response to that issue? The LEGO pieces are organized by the laws of physics, otherwise the atoms will go flying off into all directions.

Uhu, but those are the very laws that I use the metaphor of the blocks to represent. Those laws of physics might themselves be interpreted as the vibrational modes of strings etc. hence are laws dictated by certain constraints.

If we trace the cause back, we come to those 3 alternatives that I mentioned to Nirvana. (3) entails an interpretation which rules out your materialist version, and as I said above, it is the only rational possibility.

I think it's misleading and wrong to talk in terms of material and immaterial things in a discussion like this. Is a wave function really either of these things?

"3 The causal chain terminates with a basic set of principles which are true because there's no possible way that they could be untrue"

This just isn't the sort of statement that makes for a "penny-drop" moment if we remain uncommitted to a material/immaterial outlook. I can't help feeling that you get more mileage than you deserve to by dividing things up into these categories. Sure they're useful for some purposes but as soon as we look into the Quantum world there is no single interpretation that can deliver an unequivocal answer to this question.

If you don't understand the argument, then it's important to raise your hand in class. My argument is that if you need explanations, then you need an inherent mind. An explanation without a mind that understands it as an explanation is gibberish.

<RAISES HAND> What explanations are you talking about Harvey?