Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An infinite series of finite causes.

    In the classical cosmological argument it disallows an infinite series of cause and effect of a never ending series of beginnings and endings with no first beginning.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    In the classical cosmological argument it disallows an infinite series of cause and effect of a never ending series of beginnings and endings with no first beginning.
    Sounds good to me! The nature of 'disallow' is that of metaphysical possibility. Cosmological arguments are a family of arguments that have this idea as sort of a common feature. Another important feature of these types of arguments is that they're 'a priori', meaning that if sound, then, in principle, no future scientific discovery will ever overturn it. A substantial minority of physicists are actually starting to take such philosophical arguments seriously, and using their conclusions to guide their research.

    But be prepared for Shuny to come in with some mystically unintelligible koan that's off the topic, with an irrelevant block-quote to boot.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • #3
      Two facts. Our current scientific knowledge and evidence cannot support possibility of an infinite past with no beginning. And theologically it is not supported (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 102:25-26; Revelation 20:11; Revelation 21:1).

      Now even if, those two facts were not true, an infinite series of cause and effect with no first cause - there would have to be an uncaused existence - and an uncaused cause (reason) for such an eternal event (series).

      Yet the theological fact (being true) disallows such a series to explain our known universe.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        In the classical cosmological argument it disallows an infinite series of cause and effect of a never ending series of beginnings and endings with no first beginning.

        Now even if, those two facts were not true, an infinite series of cause and effect with no first cause - there would have to be an uncaused existence - and an uncaused cause (reason) for such an eternal event (series).

        Yet the theological fact (being true) disallows such a series to explain our known universe.
        What are you calling classical cosmology?

        Contemporary Cosmology considers the physical existence as potentially infinite.

        Theological 'beliefs' are not facts, and they cannot be used to explain the known universe.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-21-2018, 01:14 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          What are you calling classical cosmology?

          Contemporary Cosmology considers the physical existence as potentially infinite.

          Theological 'beliefs' are not facts, and they cannot be used to explain the known universe.
          He didn't say 'classical cosmology, dummy. Your English-reading skills stink. He said 'classic cosmological . . ." Get the difference, dummy?

          Watch out 37818? Shuny is about to spit out his baseless talking points and go on a block-quote rampage!
          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
          George Horne

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            He didn't say 'classical cosmology, dummy. Your English-reading skills stink. He said 'classic cosmological . . ." Get the difference, dummy?

            Watch out 37818? Shuny is about to spit out his baseless talking points and go on a block-quote rampage!

            the classic cosmological argument would have to make certain cosmological assumptions. What are they? They would not based on science.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              the classic cosmological argument would have to make certain cosmological assumptions. What are they? They would not based on science.
              It depends on the cosmological argument. But that's beside the point. You asked 37818, "What are you calling classical cosmology?" He wasn't calling it anything. Nice swivel.

              And sometimes the a priori premises involved don't need to be based on science. Have you jumped on the scientism-bandwagon as well? (-_-)
              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
              George Horne

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                What are you calling classical cosmology?

                Contemporary Cosmology considers the physical existence as potentially infinite.

                Theological 'beliefs' are not facts, and they cannot be used to explain the known universe.
                Look up the cosmological argument for there being God.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #9
                  A gift for Shunya . . .



                  Last edited by mattbballman31; 02-22-2018, 08:00 PM.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Look up the cosmological argument for there being God.
                    The argument from first cause (i.e. the cosmological argument) claims that the universe must have a cause, and that this cause is posited to be God. This is a classic Argument from Ignorance. There is no substantive evidence supporting the premise that universe must have a cause. This is an unverified assumption and especially specious given that contemporary physics considers that physical existence is possibly infinite.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 02-22-2018, 10:32 PM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The argument from first cause (i.e. the cosmological argument) claims that the universe must have a cause, and that this cause is posited to be God. This is a classic Argument from Ignorance.
                      Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?


                      There is no substantive evidence supporting the premise that universe must have a cause.
                      Prove it.


                      This is an unverified assumption and especially specious given that contemporary physics considers that physical existence is possibly infinite.
                      More Tass Nye the Scientism Guy! Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass . . . . Scientism rules!

                      Still running away from my questions?

                      Oh, and prove that contemporary physics considers physical existence possibly infinite, please.
                      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                      George Horne

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                        Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?

                        Prove it. [that universe must have a cause.]
                        YOU are the one promoting the Cosmological Argument so YOU prove the unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause and is not infinite. You cannot show the assertion that "the universe must have a cause" to be true. Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 02-23-2018, 04:19 AM.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          YOU are the one promoting the Cosmological Argument so YOU prove the unsubstantiated premise that the universe must have a cause and is not infinite. You cannot show the assertion that "the universe must have a cause" to be true. Therefore the conclusion that the cause is God cannot be shown to be true.
                          Well, more realistically, since the universe is also made up of causes, the issue really is to show, prove, that it had to have a unique first cause with no prior cause and that it cannot be do to an infinite series of causes without a first cause. The evidence is the observable apparent origin has a known beginning (calculated to be some 13.7 billion years ago). We have no evidence that was not caused by another cause prior. All causes are caused being finite temporal events.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            Do you even know what the Argument from Ignorance is? X is true because X hasn't been proven false. How in the name of Zeus' chest muscles is this an Argument from Ignorance?

                            Prove it.

                            More Tass Nye the Scientism Guy! Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass . . . . Scientism rules!

                            Still running away from my questions?

                            Oh, and prove that contemporary physics considers physical existence possibly infinite, please.
                            Bizarre none answer! You cannot falsify nor prove the negative.

                            Scientist do not prove anything, and whether our physical existence is infinite, eternal, finite nor temporal cannot by falsified by a scientific hypothesis, but . . .

                            The hypothesis for a cyclic universe has determined our physical existence is possibly endless.

                            Endless Universe

                            Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html


                            The Cyclic Theory agrees that there was some violent event 14 billion years ago – we still call it a "big bang" – but this was not the beginning of space and time. The key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang. Furthermore, there was not just one bang. The evolution of the universe is cyclic with big bangs occurring once every trillion or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets, and presumably life. Ours is only the most recent cycle.

                            . . .

                            In the Cyclic Theory, the universe is the same almost everywhere, so the laws and properties we see are typical of the whole. Hence, the Cyclic Theory restores the hope that the universe is simple and comprehensible to us even though we are only able to observe it from a limited vantage point.

                            How can you test the “Cyclic Theory”?

                            Answer:
                            There are several ways. For example, the Cyclic Theory leaves a distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the Big Bang Theory, as described in Chapter 9 of our book. A number of experimental groups throughout the world are now starting to search for these waves using detectors on satellites, high altitude balloons and on mountaintop observatories, and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years.

                            Why write this book now before the theory has been tested?

                            Answer:
                            Most science books are written after ideas have been around for many years and already well established. We thought it would be interesting to write about a radically new scientific idea with far-reaching implications at a time when it is first emerging and before it is proven. This provides to capture science as it is happening through the eyes of scientists directly involved. We not only describe the ideas, but also the real struggles and risk-taking involved in developing new scientific ideas. In this way, we hope the book not only conveys the new ideas themselves, but also gives the reader an insider’s view on how science really works.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                              The hypothesis for a cyclic universe has determined our physical existence is possibly endless.
                              An hypothesis does not determine anything. It is a guess. It is metaphysics. Not science.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X