Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

[Adrift]

And it denies an infinite regress. The concept of there being no first cause in an infinite series of causes and effects.

I don't understand this. Are you criticizing the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it rejects an infinite regress?

What exactly do you think an infinite regress is? Are you saying that an infinite regress is the concept of there being no first cause, or are you saying that an infinite regress is the denial of there being no first cause? And don't you yourself believe in a first cause for the universe?

[Teallaura]

I just think of it as a factual statement about the concept of "existence". We can make factual statements about the concept of "nothing" too (like that it is a term of universal negation, and means "not anything", and that there are no possible word in which "nothing" exists, etc.), but by making factual statements about "nothing", we're not presuming "nothing" exists.

I don't know. Maybe we're all saying the same thing.

Well, we presume meaning and absent existence I don't see how existence can have meaning (if there is nothing then how do you conceptualize the opposite?) but it's a minor point at best and honestly, it makes no difference at all which one is correct for present purposes. If we were really arguing it I'd be fine with conceding for the sake of argument.

[37818]

I don't understand this. Are you criticizing the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it rejects an infinite regress?

What exactly do you think an infinite regress is? Are you saying that an infinite regress is the concept of there being no first cause, or are you saying that an infinite regress is the denial of there being no first cause? And don't you yourself believe in a first cause for the universe?

Just because, if there be no first cause, would not necessarily rule out first causes (more than one). Yes, the Kalam cosmological argument rejection of an infinite regress is one reason I reject it. Even if there is no infinite regress to the cause of our known universe. (Which I do not believe there is an infinite regress which ended up being our known universe.) That being said, an infinite regress or no infinite regress should not make any difference in there being an uncaused existence. None what so ever. The Kalam argument needs to deny it [an infinite regress]. The starting premise of an uncaused existence does not.

[37818]

I don't understand this. Are you criticizing the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it rejects an infinite regress?

Yes.

What exactly do you think an infinite regress is? Are you saying that an infinite regress is the concept of there being no first cause, or are you saying that an infinite regress is the denial of there being no first cause? And don't you yourself believe in a first cause for the universe?

The idea that our known universe is an end result of an infinite series of causes and effects. Even if true, there would still need to be an uncaused existence for such an infinite series to even exist.

I believe the Son of God is the uncaused cause. Whether our universe is purely ex nihilo or do to such an infinite series. A unique origin being ex nihilo or an infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause in the series, are both difficult concepts. I'm fine with either. I hold to ex nihilo origin of our universe by our God, via His Son as the Logos, the Word (John 1:3, Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 17).

[Teallaura]

Oh. You can make a false accusation without proof? What did I claim was a self evident truth that needed to be proved? I did not.

Okay, now you're being dense. I said you made an a priori assumption and then spelled it out - the problem of self evident not meaning what you assumed came later and isn't actually fallacious. Erroneous, not fallacious - see earlier post.

Translation: you don't even get what I told you was fallacious!

No. I started with the premise of an uncaused existence. So in that regard, I indeed presume existence. (Again, not to be confused with caused existence, space-time and matter.)

Doesn't refute my point. It still sounds like a bad rehash.

Why? Only to presume something comes from nothingness.

You can't work from an unshared assumption - the con can legitimately reject the entire argument on that basis. To argue you have to have some shared assumptions - none of which can be the thing you're trying to prove.

So unless you are willing to argue God needs a God. Then why would an uncause existence need a God?

Why wouldn't it? Making things exist isn't the only thing God does, you know.

So does that mean not one or the other? Are you saying this, uncaused existence which does not needing a God creates a false dilemma, in which either the uncaused existence indicates that there is no God or that it is God? What other possibilities do you see? Can you give an uncaused existence which needs God? Or why would you suppose something uncaused needs a God?

I'm saying that as stated your argument does not preclude the possibility. You're now adding in a bunch of other assumptions - but it doesn't matter. Your argument rests on something without a cause existing - but with no explanation of how that can be there's also nothing to stop the presumption that where one exists, another might also. This is what I mean about you skipping steps - you need to eliminate such obvious loopholes in your statement.

I do not care. Mud it is.

Then do not ask.

What does God's name mean to you? To me it means He is the self existent one [uncaused existence]. To me that is the meaning of His name.

I don't presume to define God's name for Him - even if I do accept the implication that He is eternal.

The only reason I included it was for fellow believers. The skeptic need not believe it. The skeptic only needs to understand that is what I believe.

That's the dumbest thing you've said yet - why bother with an argument regarding God's existence for those who already accept and know He exists?

I reject it. It presumes what it sets out to prove. It presumes an existence too. And it denies an infinite regress. The concept of there being no first cause in an infinite series of causes and effects.

1) No, it doesn't. 2) Yes, it does, I grant that - but it doesn't make the slightest difference. 3) Good, infinite regress is a bad thing - and not what you think it means.

[Adrift]

Just because, if there be no first cause, would not necessarily rule out first causes (more than one).

What? That doesn't make any sense. That's a contradictory sentence.

Yes, the Kalam cosmological argument rejection of an infinite regress is one reason I reject it. Even if there is no infinite regress to the cause of our known universe. (Which I do not believe there is an infinite regress which ended up being our known universe.)

Okay. Well let's just dwell on this one aspect for awhile, because this is all very very confusing. You say that you criticize the Kalam argument because it rejects an infinite regress, but then say that you do not believe there is an infinite regress for the known universe. So, it turns out you agree with the same premise that you critique. How is that possible?

That being said, an infinite regress or no infinite regress should not make any difference in there being an uncaused existence. None what so ever.

An infinite regresses in cosmological arguments only pertains to those things that begin to exist. Do you believe that the universe began to exist, or do you believe that it was eternal?

The Kalam argument needs to deny it [an infinite regress]. The starting premise of an uncaused existence does not.

You're confusing what the Kalam argument is denying when it denies an infinite regress. An infinite regress can only, by definition, apply to things that begin to exist. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. An infinite regress is impossible in the actual world. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be based on something that did not begin to exist, something like God.

You can not apply an infinite regress to God because God never began to exist.

[Adrift]

The idea that our known universe is an end result of an infinite series of causes and effects.

Okay. So you believe that an infinite regress is the idea that our known universe is an end result of an infinite series of causes and effects. I could split hairs, but that's close enough to what we usually mean when we refer to an infinite regress.

Even if true, there would still need to be an uncaused existence for such an infinite series to even exist.

Dude. That's. No. The whole point of an infinite regress is that there is no uncaused existence. Thats the WHOLE POINT! That's why people criticize it. That's why the Kalam Cosmological Argument rejects it. I don't know how you can not see that.

I believe the Son of God is the uncaused cause.

Right. And so do people who usually use the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Whether our universe is purely ex nihilo or do to such an infinite series. A unique origin being ex nihilo or an infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause in the series, are both difficult concepts. I'm fine with either. I hold to ex nihilo origin of our universe by our God, via His Son as the Logos, the Word (John 1:3, Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 17).

Then I'm convinced that you agree with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and that the only reason you reject it is because you don't totally understand what an infinite regress implies.

[37818]

What? That doesn't make any sense. That's a contradictory sentence.

Just because there are first causes does not mean there was one unique first cause for everything. Understand the premise. An infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause. Each event in the series can be regarded as a type of first cause. So if we are talking about a series of universes one after the other. Each has its first cause. But there being no one first cause for the whole series. No first universe in the series.

Okay. Well let's just dwell on this one aspect for awhile, because this is all very very confusing. You say that you criticize the Kalam argument because it rejects an infinite regress, but then say that you do not believe there is an infinite regress for the known universe. So, it turns out you agree with the same premise that you critique. How is that possible?

The Kalam argument supposes caused existence, which is in evidence, and then sets out to prove there was a first uncaused cause that exists. My argument starts out supposing an uncaused existence.

The problem, existence is supposed. And then sets out to prove an existence for God. Existence in the argument does not need proof. God does. The existence does not need God in the argument.

An infinite regresses in cosmological arguments only pertains to those things that begin to exist. Do you believe that the universe began to exist, or do you believe that it was eternal?

That depends how one defines "universe." The universe being all things created. Or the universe meaning all that exists. The latter would make the universe eternal, in that, it would also be comprised of the uncaused existence which I identify as God. The caused existences which comprise our observed created universe as we know, it would still not be God or part of God.

You're confusing what the Kalam argument is denying when it denies an infinite regress. An infinite regress can only, by definition, apply to things that begin to exist. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. An infinite regress is impossible in the actual world. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be based on something that did not begin to exist, something like God.

Well, that one might conclude that. But if the current state of our universe is one in series of caused events, then it could both be eternal and be caused, with no first cause ever. The whole infinite series conceivably created without it ever having a first cause. God could have done that. But that is not what we are told (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3).

You can not apply an infinite regress to God because God never began to exist.

An infinite series of causes and effects are all caused, not having in the series a first cause. An uncaused existence never began to exist, it always existed. My starting premise.

[Adrift]

Just because there are first causes does not mean there was one unique first cause for everything. Understand the premise. An infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause. Each event in the series can be regarded as a type of first cause. So if we are talking about a series of universes one after the other. Each has its first cause. But there being no one first cause for the whole series. No first universe in the series.

You're just making things confusing. When people talk about a "first cause" in cosmological arguments, they're referring to the cause that started the dominoes falling. They're not referring to each domino right before it falls.

The problem, existence is supposed.

Assuming that it supposes existence, why is that a problem?

Existence in the argument does not need proof.

Right. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not argue for proof of existence. It argues for the beginning of the universe.

The existence does not need God in the argument.

If we want to know how the universe began we need something like God, otherwise we argue for an eternal universe.

That depends how one defines "universe." The universe being all things created. Or the universe meaning all that exists. The latter would make the universe eternal, in that, it would also be comprised of the uncaused existence which I identify as God.

In all cosmological discussions, when we refer to the "universe" we are referring to the material universe. So, for the theist, that would be all things created. The only people who would define the universe as also comprising God would be panentheists (or maybe pantheists). I don't know of any orthodox cosmological arguments that would argue for a universe that also comprise God.

Well, that one might conclude that. But if the current state of our universe is one in series of caused events, then it could both be eternal and be caused, with no first cause ever. The whole infinite series conceivably created without it ever having a first cause. God could have done that. But that is not what we are told (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3).

No. Again first cause in cosmological discussions is referring to the very first domino pushed over in the chain, not each domino as you come to it. My mother and father are the cause of me. They are not the first cause. They are just a link in a chain of causes that goes back to the beginning of the universe. To then talk about a first cause in an infinite series of causes is nonsense.

An infinite series of causes and effects are all caused, not having in the series a first cause. An uncaused existence never began to exist, it always existed. My starting premise.

Well then your first premise sounds exactly like the Kalam Cosmological argument.

[37818]

An infinite series of dominos, no first domino, no last domino. An infinite set of dominos have fallen, dominos continue to fall. There are yet an infinite set of dominos to fall. There is no first fallen domino.

[Adrift]

An infinite series of dominos, no first domino, no last domino. An infinite set of dominos have fallen, dominos continue to fall. There are yet an infinite set of dominos to fall. There is no first fallen domino.

That's true. Did you imagine I thought differently?

[Soyeong]

If there were no first domino to fall, then none of the dominos would be falling. You can't have an infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause.

[Adrift]

If there were no first domino to fall, then none of the dominos would be falling. You can't have an infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause.

Right. I assumed he was referring to an infinite regress, which of course, is not possible in the actual world (or at least, I don't believe it is).

[37818]

If there were no first domino to fall, then none of the dominos would be falling. You can't have an infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause.

There was no first cause in the series of falling dominos. You want to simply disallow the example.

[37818]

That's true. Did you imagine I thought differently?

Yes.

. . . they're referring to the cause that started the dominoes falling. . . .

When the point of the series being infinite, meaning, having no first cause. What has a first cause IN NOT INFINITE. Or eternal.