An argument for Monotheism

[Boxing Pythagoras]

"Nothing comes from nothing" may be common experience, but it isn't self-evident, any more than "parallel lines never meet" is self-evident.

Oooh, a Euclid's 5th Postulate reference! We about to get Riemannian all up in this piece...

[Roy]

Oooh, a Euclid's 5th Postulate reference! We about to get Riemannian all up in this piece...

I did my first original paper on (IIRC) analytical and algebraic topology of an infinitely differentiable non-Euclidean Reimannian manifold.

[guacamole]

No idea.

But not knowing how that could happen is not proof that it could not happen. I have no idea how Google's search algorithm finds web-pages, but that doesn't mean Google doesn't work.

Presumably, that is not outside of human knowledge--someone knows how it works--so I don't see that as sufficiently analogous.

I suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.

"Nothing comes from nothing" may be common experience, but it isn't self-evident, any more than "parallel lines never meet" is self-evident.

This might be a quibble, but I think we are talking about defining terms here--by definition, parallel lines are lines that never meet. It isn't self-evident, not because it's a fact that's in question, but because that is simply how we chose to define the term. Suppose there are two lines that never meet--we will call those lines parallel.

It's smuggled in by going from "something must have a prior thing" to "something must be caused by a prior thing". But if you stop it somewhere you immediately contradict "something must have a prior thing", since the last turtle has no prior thing.

I'm objecting to the unnecessarily pejorative characterization of "smuggled-in."

This:

From nothing, nothing is caused.
...
The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.

is a contradiction.

No. It would be a contradiction if:

All things have a cause.
...
The cause that is prior to all causes is uncaused.

~or~

From nothing, nothing is caused
...
The cause that is prior to all causes, which is uncaused, came from nothing.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Roy]

Presumably, that is not outside of human knowledge--someone knows how it works--so I don't see that as sufficiently analogous.

Ok, so substitute Google's search engine with "how there could be an odd perfect number" or "how there can be life on Mars" or something else that is (currently) outside human knowledge.

I suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.

I don't think I am appealing to it. I'm aware that humans have an extremely limited knowledge of the universe, both temporally and spatially, and that there are phenomena such as particle-pair-production for which no cause has been verified. I don't know whether it is possible. I don't know what event led to the universe. I simply do not know, and am not going to assume it is not possible when there is no way to verify it.

This might be a quibble, but I think we are talking about defining terms here--by definition, parallel lines are lines that never meet.

Counter quibble: By another definition, parallel lines are "lines m and l both intersected by a third straight line (a transversal) in the same plane, the corresponding angles of intersection with the transversal are congruent." It isn't self-evident that those lines never meet.

I'm objecting to the unnecessarily pejorative characterization of "smuggled-in."

Oh. I wasn't intending any deliberate hiding by JM.

All things have a cause.
...
From nothing, nothing is caused

Aren't these equivalent?

From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?

If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.

[guacamole]

I don't think I am appealing to it. I'm aware that humans have an extremely limited knowledge of the universe, both temporally and spatially, and that there are phenomena such as particle-pair-production for which no cause has been verified. I don't know whether it is possible. I don't know what event led to the universe. I simply do not know, and am not going to assume it is not possible when there is no way to verify it.

I think inductive logic gives us a good enough possible answer here:

1. We do not currently know anything that is uncaused.
2. Everything we have seen is caused.
3. I can say, due to increasingly diminishing probability, that anything that seems uncaused is probably caused.
4. I can further therefore reasonably say, with increasing confidence, that everything is caused.

Counter quibble: By another definition, parallel lines are "lines m and l both intersected by a third straight line (a transversal) in the same plane, the corresponding angles of intersection with the transversal are congruent." It isn't self-evident that those lines never meet.

I suppose. It seems, given my admittedly limited experience with math, that you are hiding a simple definition in more complex wording. At any rate, if the lines meet, they aren't parallel.

Aren't these equivalent?

no.

From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing

There's nothing here linking the "nothing" set of clauses with the "something" set of clauses.

=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?

If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.

That's why we need a special, uber-magical, sparkly cause.

fwiw,
guacamole

[JohnMartin]

Nothing new here. Repetition does not make an argument valid.

It remains possible that the 'cause' is an eternal physical existence and Natural Law.

Actually I argue for an apophatic Monotheism, and reject the Greek/Roman Paulist Kataphatic Tritheism of traditional Christianity. Too many Gods.

False. An "eternal physical existence and Natural Law" is not the first cause for "eternal physical existence and Natural Law" is composed of potency and act. The first cause is pure act.

Traditional Christianity is monotheistic.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The rest is pointless equivocation, the only effect of which is to obscure the actual argument.

The dogmatic atheist is at it again. How about you show us a proof for the non existence of God? It may make for some interesting reading. I bet you never will post such a proof, for no proof exists. Atheism is merely an errant opinion without any rational basis.

JM

[JohnMartin]

This presumes that, if there is something, then this something must have come to be; and it further presumes that this something must have come from another something.

I'm fairly sure that neither you nor I actually believe such a premise. For example, I am sure you would say that God is not nothing, but that God nevertheless did not come to be, let alone come from anything else.

If God came to be then God is merely another creature.

The real God is uncaused and never came to be. The nature of the true God is being itself.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Correct, which is why I noted that unless want turtles all the way down, we have to stop it somewhere. I think the OP weakened his case by having to draw first cause into it.

The argument assumes the principle of limited regress is true. The principle of limited regress says causes per se subordinated do not regress to infinity. The principle applied infers the conclusion that causes per se subordinated regress to a finite first cause.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by guacamole View Post
I would argue that line "nothing comes from nothing" is self-evident. How exactly would something come from nothing?
No idea.

You have no idea because nothing is non being, and non being is not a cause. For a cause has being, which infers a cause is the contradictory of nothing. Hence if a cause has a positive influence on the being of a thing, then nothing has no influence on the being of a thing. If a cause has an effect then nothing has no effect. We know nothing is not a cause from the natures of nothing and cause.

But not knowing how that could happen is not proof that it could not happen. I have no idea how Google's search algorithm finds web-pages, but that doesn't mean Google doesn't work.

"Nothing comes from nothing" may be common experience, but it isn't self-evident, any more than "parallel lines never meet" is self-evident.

Parallel lines are always equidistant from each other. Converging lines are not equidistant from each other. Parallel lines are then not convergent lines. We know from the nature of parallel and convergent that parallel is not convergent, hence parallel lines will never meet.

If something must have a prior thing, since nothing comes from nothing, then causation is implied and not smuggled in.
It's smuggled in by going from "something must have a prior thing" to "something must be caused by a prior thing".
If it's not turtles all the way down, we need to stop it somewhere.

But if you stop it somewhere you immediately contradict "something must have a prior thing", since the last turtle has no prior thing.

The something in "something must have a prior thing" is composed of potency and act. Whereas the first cause is pure act and hence not composed of potency and act. Hence "something must have a prior thing" applies to things composed of potency and act but not to the thing which is pure act.

This:
Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
From nothing, nothing is caused.
...
The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
is a contradiction.

This contradiction is only your assertion.

A clarification. From nothing, nothing is caused is more clearly stated as from nothing, no thing is caused.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.

The supernaturalists claim miracles are caused by God who is the supernatural agent and not from no cause as you incorrectly state above.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Aren't these equivalent?

From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?

If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.

From nothing, nothing is caused is better stated as - from nothing, no thing is caused. For nothing is non being and a cause has being. The upshot is non being does not cause the being of another. For non being is the contradictory of being.

The apparent contradiction is removed.

JM

[guacamole]

The argument assumes the principle of limited regress is true. The principle of limited regress says causes per se subordinated do not regress to infinity. The principle applied infers the conclusion that causes per se subordinated regress to a finite first cause.

JM

Sure, but for what it's worth, I said that you weakened your case by drawing first cause into it because people haven't discussed the meat of your argument--that monotheism is necessary and logical. They're getting hung up on the "first cause" clauses. Assume first cause and then make the argument.

[guacamole]

The supernaturalists claim miracles are caused by God who is the supernatural agent and not from no cause as you incorrectly state above.

JM

Of course. I put the "something can come from nothing" in quotes because I am assuming, for the sake of argument, the metaphysical naturalist's position. I used "uncaused phenomena" as a short hand for "caused-by-God-and-not-another-physical-cause."

[JohnMartin]

Sure, but for what it's worth, I said that you weakened your case by drawing first cause into it because people haven't discussed the meat of your argument--that monotheism is necessary and logical. They're getting hung up on the "first cause" clauses. Assume first cause and then make the argument.

The first cause is brought into the argument which assumes the truth of the principle of limited regress. The assumption is true and hence the introduction of the first cause into the argument is made without error.

JM