[arcura]

Tut,
I agree with Joe.
And I asked for things that have no first cause here, not somewhere else.
I have never visited the philosophy section and I don't intend to do so now.
If you can't answer the request here I'll assume that you can't answer it anywhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Tut,
I agree with Joe.
And I asked for things that have no first cause here, not somewhere else.
I have never visited the philosophy section and I don't intend to do so now.
If you can't answer the request here I'll assume that you can't answer it anywhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hi Fred,
As you wish, no problem. I will attempt to answer your question here.
When I start talking about causation and first cause I am talking about cause in the physical world, not the spiritual. I will argue against first cause in this world. This does not necessarily mean that the world didn't have a first cause in the religious sense. I will draw on the arguments of Hume and some noted physicists. It is worth keeping in mind that physics is not interested in first cause because once a scientist brings in a first cause explanation then he is no longer doing science, he is doing metaphysics. This I am sure of this. No doubt a scientist will pick up my errors when I begin talking about physics.

The foremost criticism of first cause is that it is impossible to say that we have discovered the first cause of any physical process. If I throw a rock through a window and the glass shatters, then was it the rock that shattered the glass or was it the person who threw the rock? You can develop an argument for both claims. But wait, it was my friends who forced me to throw the rock, they were the cause of my actions. The point is that we can conceive indefinitely, backwards or forwards any sequence of events.

This is not my main argument against first cause. I want to draw on Hume's denial of cause arguments. If Hume is correct then cause and effect are a well founded illusion. It must follow then that first cause is also an illusion.

When it comes to causation Hume says that it is a determination of the mind to compare ideas. Ideas are created from impressions gained through experiencing the world. For example If I kick a soccer ball into an apple tree I might observe apples falling from the tree. Impressions are created in the mind from these observations and are stored as ideas for later comparisons.

As far as most people are concerned when we see someone kick a ball into an apple tree and see apples fall we would concluded the ball caused the apples to fall. Furthermore, reason would dictate that the ball was the first cause. Unfortunately reason can let us down badly.

Hume would say that if we examined our impressions of a soccer ball and the apple tree we would not find any part or feature of the impression that was the necessity of the apple falling. The necessary connection that our mind produces between the soccer ball and the apple tree is the result of our psychological disposition, it is not in the events themselves. The connection between cause and effect is a psychological one it is not a physical one. Hume say that the only link between cause and effect is custom or habit.

If we were to examine the concept of gravity then we know that it is not a thing. If I throw an apple into the air and it falls to the ground I rightly conclude that it was the force of gravity which made the apple fall. No one actually sees gravity. We can't put gravity in a test tube and examine it, no more than we can see the cause of any observable feature. It is only because the two impressions have been witnessed over and over again that we have an expectations that when we see one we will see the other.

Firstly, we cannot prove that the events are necessarily connected. Secondly, we cannot know that these events will hold true in the future. The next time I throw an apple into the air it could just hang there for 10 or fifteen minutes before it falls. I can be extremely close to 100% sure that it won't and that it will fall back to earth almost immediately. The interesting point is that we can never be 100% sure that it will obey the laws of physics. It something is conceivable then it has a probability factor.

Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they doesn't apply to modern science. However, the opposite is the case. What Hume claims is true of the macro world, quantum physics now says is true of the micro world.

In classical physics we talk about casual chains. This is because classical physics deals with localized reality in space time. Quantum mechanics does away with localized realities in favor of non-localized instant interaction between particles. In essence this means there is instant communication between particles which requires faster than light travel. If this is true than the concept of cause and effect is an illusion or at best meaningless.
Einstein could not accept this and claimed that quantum theory was incomplete. However, 'Bell's Inequality suggests Einstein was wrong.

[TUT317]

I apologize for the poor way I have typed up this response. My internet keeps dropping out so I tried to finish it as quickly as possible... TUT

[jmjoseph]

Ohsohappy, My belief, that is to ME, proof of GOD is the world around us. Every atom in our universe. From the morning sun, to newborn's first breath. All these things just didn't HAPPEN.

Proof of satan is the doubt that you have. He likes doubt, hate, atheists...

We all have to find what works for us.

Sometimes we have to have FAITH .

I wish you strength, love, and understanding.

[TUT317]

I would like to make the point that I am not an atheist, I am a Christian and therefore believe in God.
I attempted to answer a question some time ago and now it seems I am in a never ending debate. Everything that I have written on this website has in no way been an attempt to disprove the existence of God, in fact the OPPOSITE is the case... TUT

[JoeT777]

Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they doesn't apply to modern science.

You got that right! Not only silly, but a classic example of relativisim - the non-speed of light type.

JoeT

[arcura]

TUT317,
Tanks for your effort.
But...
None of that shows the lack of a first cause.
Everything has a start somewhere or some when.
The window started being one when it was built.
The rock started being one when the material in it solidified into a rock.
The builder of the window started being a person when he/she was conceived, etc, etc.
It all goes back to when the first atoms become atoms and the part of the atoms cam into being from the universes first cause now called the big bang.
The big bang also has a first cause.
If physics does not want to recognize that it is physic's problem not mine or anyone else's.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

I was deliberately misquoted by JoeT in an earlier entry. The misquote was, "Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they don't apply to modern science" end quote. The quote in full was "Now one may argue that Hume's arguments are silly and very elementary and they don't apply to modern science. However, the opposite is the case"

Evidence for this from comes from Professor David Norton ".....and twentieth-century physics and philosophy of mind have returned the notion of causality to the central place in epistemology and philosophy of science that Hume accorded it".

If JoeT is suggesting that Hume is a relativist then this is incorrect. Hume distinguishes between matters of fact and matters which involve value judgments. Yes, value judgments for Hume are associated with sentiments and feelings, but he clearly says these types of judgments are universal. Therefore, Hume cannot be a relativist.

[Alty]

Guys, this is going way off topic

If you want to continue discussing this then please start a new thread. This thread is about the OP and her question.

Thank you.

[arcura]

Altenweg,
Point well made.
Fred

[TUT317]

Point taken... Tut

[Danny_G600]

How strange that I should happen upon your letter, I was looking for a CD labelling program called Expressit 5 and your letter came up 'I am so unsure. I just need to express it.' I think The Lord would say 'He who does my work by acting righteously serves me better than he who sings my praises and acts not righteously'. I won't preach to you as I'm no saint myself, Jesus was a nice guy who had some great ideas, while there are people like you who live by those ideas Jesus lives through your works. You can kill a man but you can never truly kill his ideas. Belief in God is not what makes a good man, doing the right thing is more important, then (if there is a God) he'll believe in you.

[jmjoseph]

How strange that I should happen upon your letter, I was looking for a CD labelling program called Expressit 5 and your letter came up 'I am so unsure. I just need to express it.' I think The Lord would say 'He who does my work by acting righteously serves me better than he who sings my praises and acts not righteously'. I won't preach to you as I'm no saint myself, Jesus was a nice guy who had some great ideas, while there are people like you who live by those ideas Jesus lives through your works. You can kill a man but you can never truly kill his ideas. Belief in God is not what makes a good man, doing the right thing is more important, then (if there is a God) he'll believe in you.

Please note the dates on these posts. This one is 368 days old. Welcome and enjoy the site.

[ohsohappy]

Please note the dates on these posts. This one is 368 days old. Welcome and enjoy the site.

Feel free to close the thread.