Arguments against first cause/uncaused cause?

[BearCavalry]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

[Ionian_Tradition]

The experience of Helen Keller might present a challenge, but the argument of context is too easy to defend.

You'll note that Helen Keller was taught language through tactile sensation (the contextual sensation of cool water running on one hand and her teacher tracing the linguistic expression of "water" in the palm of the other). Touch is an experience is it not?



p=526081#526081]Danmark[/url]"]
In essence, what you are stating in a complicated way is simply the obvious.

But if you are talking about an 'infinite mind' you are stating a different case because you are positing something that we cannot imagine or hope to understand except as a vague abstraction without real understanding.

Interesting that we are so comfortable ascribing to this exceedingly unfathomable mind very human capacities such as desire & volition... None the less, my argument is not predicated upon a complete understanding of "infinite minds", rather it is predicated upon an understanding of the nature of concepts, particularly that which lends them their logical coherency (viz. context born from experience).

That Helen Keller understood the word and concept of water finally, when she felt it, is precisely why I said the context argument is too easy to defend. At least in the movie versions it was the feel of water that made her 'get it.'

We can only understand the nature of concept with the finite mind we have [obvious]. So how to we comprehend the infinite mind? What can we do? We can posit the concept that the infinite mind can conceive and accomplish something that we can neither comprehend nor describe. I'm not sure where that leaves us.

If we assume that this infinite mind is capable of making creative choices in a manner similar, if not identical to our own, then it is reasonable to assume that this mind must form a concept of that which it seeks to create in order to choose to create anything (a mind cannot create that which it does not know, at least in concept). We know concepts acquire their coherency by way of context. If it can be shown that core context is derived solely through experiential knowledge, then we can reasonable conclude that a conscious choice to create the universe cannot be made in the absence of a coherent concept contextualized by the experiences of the mind which bore it (be that mind finite or infinite).

[scourge99]

An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

1) assuming this is true, it does not demonstrate that the entity that caused the universe made a choice. E.G., the entity could have unintentionally created the universe or created the universe as the result of some other uncaused entity bumping into it which caused the creation of the universe. In other words, unless
X) unintentional actions are "choices"
Or
XX) uncaused entities can't unintentionally do anything
and
XXX) its been demonstrated that there is one and only one uncaused entity
and
XXXX) this entity does not consist of any sub-entities that can act freely from the others.

then it does not necessarily follow that the universe was caused as result of a "choice" by this entity. Thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

These are descriptions of a caused cause. We're discussing an uncaused cause.

it seems like you didn't read or didn't understand what i said because what i described are all relevant descriptions of uncaused entities.
1) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that uncaused entities can't unintentionally do things.
2) I don't see any reason to ACCEPT the idea that there is necessarily only one uncaused entity.
3) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that an uncaused entity can't be comprised of sub-entities.

You're discussing an uncaused entity, which isn't the subject of this thread. This thread is about whether or not an uncaused cause (assumed) proves the concept of a god.

Its my understanding that we are discussing an uncaused entity which caused the "universe" to come into existence. That is,
1) we assume uncaused entities exist.
2) one or more of these uncaused entities caused the "first cause" (the first cause "within" the universe) which set the universe in motion.

You seem to think something else. You seem to think there is only one logically possible uncaused entity. You also seem to think something strange about what the "first cause" is. I think you should expand on that.


1) how can the universe be brought into existence unless its coming into existence is caused by something else and something "prior"?

2) why can one and only one uncaused entity exist?

...first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God

The "first cause" refers to an entity which is "outside" this universe AND caused the universes existence. A first cause of this universe is not necessarily uncaused "outside" this universe. But for arguments sake we assume this entity is uncaused by anything "inside" or "outside" this universe.

That is my understanding of the uncaused/first cause argument.

2) i think your definition of "choice" is ambiguous and problematic. If an action must be caused by something it can either arise from within the entity itself, from outside the entity, or a combination of both. Agreed?

Some computers, though created, can work autonomously (like UAVs) . By your definition they can make choices because some of their actions arise from within themselves (their program) which is wholly self contained.

Similarly, would you agree that animals make choices (if not, why not)? Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a choice when it comes to organisms? For example, when an amoeba eats a bacteria did it "choose" to do so? When a squirrel stores food for the winter, is it choosing to do so? When i go to the store and pick up a steak for dinner, did i choose to do so?

3) experiments have been done which demonstrate that at least some human choices (possibly all) are causal because they can be predicted with accuracy significantly greater than chance. This creates a lot of problems for your claim that choice requires intelligence because if some or all human choices are the result of causal forces then any causal system would qualify as "intelligent".
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... d_decision

Any physical reaction is cause, not choice. So a UAV, whose "decision" making is merely a series of physical reactions, does not choose.

Computer programs are not physical. I.E., you cannot point to the location of a computer program anymore than you can point to the location of a mind. Computer programs do require physical things like computer hardware but that is similar to how minds manifest only when a physical brain is present and working. So if you are going to dismiss software programs as physical because they run on hardware then it seems you must also dismiss minds as physical because they require brains.

A computer program in the way you're thinking of it is just a label for a physical series of events. An electrical current travels down a wire and turns a switch; a simple, physical, mechanical phenomena. An electrical current goes down 3 wires: 2 of which turn a switch, and the 3rd goes right through and comes back to the root. A more complex, yet still physical, mechanical phenomena. Multiply this by a few billion and now you have a CPU running a program: still a purely physical set of phenomenon, organized in an incredible manner. Now add some chemical/biological processes and a whole lot more complexity, and now you have a brain: another purely physical entity. If you consider a mind to just be a brain, then yes, a mind would be purely physical.

All the evidence indicates minds are manifestations of purely physical things. Same with computer programs and hurricanes. Everything we know about the brain demonstrates this. When its damaged, drugged, or changed then certain cognitive capabilities are lost, modified, or changed. It makes no more sense to posit the idea of minds floating about without a brain than it makes sense to posit the idea of a computer program executing without a computer, or a hurricane occurring without an atmosphere.

But suppose we ignore that and make the assumption that minds can float about without brains. That still doesn't get us anywhere close to your statement that "a mind is the only thing that can perform an action without any other cause". It seems to just be another assumption that only minds can cause things without any other cause. And thats if we ignore the problem that the things we do know have minds (like humans) make choices and decisions largely if not completely due to prior causes. Minds do not magically produce actions. Its a physical, causal process based in the brain.

As for an amoeba, squirrel, or you: that depends on your opinion of whether you believe they're purely physical entities, or they have some non-physical decision-making capacity. [yarmulke]

Both. Decision making is a capability achieved by complex physical structures such as brains.

I believe that man kind is a combination. Since our purpose for living is to improve ourselves through choosing good/better over evil/worse, those situations that are completely non-moral are not where our true selves act, but are merely automatic functions of our physical shells, like a squirrel. So was there a moral decision in your steak choice? Are you healthy enough that a slab of red meat won't hurt you? Do you have a spouse/children that you have a responsibility to be healthy for? Did you consider how humanely the animal was treated?[/yarmulke]

You don't seem to have addressed much of anything I have said or asked by this. And its strange that you have changed the subject to morality.

I know, it was a side point, which is why I put my personal Jewish opinion in a [yarmulke] tag. Naturally, you gave your opinion above too, since it's an interesting side topic.

I was challenging your statement that "decisions" aren't reducible to the physical. They clearly are reducible based on the evidence.

You can disagree but then I'd ask you to explain how you KNOW that only minds can make "decisions". (keep in mind your definition of "decision" is "performing an action without any other cause". Furthermore, your definition is anthropomorphic, which it shouldn't be. I think that indicates some hidden assumptions.

In order to perform an uncaused action, the entity must have a non-physical decision-making capacity.

This thread is about the the universe being brought into existence by an uncaused entity. I don't see why its necessary to have an uncaused entity performing uncaused actions to create the universe. Once an uncaused entity has been established as existent (which i have assumed for the sake of argument), then it doesn't matter whether its actions are caused or not caused to create the universe.

Like I stated above, this discussion is about an uncaused cause, not an uncaused entity.

perhaps you can link to a plain-English source that makes the argument you think you are making. I think you are confused (or perhaps i am) on what is uncaused, what is meant by the "first cause" , and what is meant by "uncaused causer".