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

[Soyeong]

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

I could talk about an example of an infinite set of married bachelors, but it would be just as fruitless.

[37818]

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.

How can I discuss this with you? Having first causes (plural) and never one original first cause.

[37818]

I could talk about an example of an infinite set of married bachelors, but it would be just as fruitless.

Yes that would be nonsense. So the example of an infinite series of dominos with no first domino and no last domino to you is nonsense. Fine.

[Adrift]

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

Your sentence structure here seems to be broken up, and is very hard to read. Since I can't parse this sentence, I'll just try to fill in the blanks as best I can.

It appears to me that you missed my point about the dominoes. When we refer to a first cause in cosmology, we refer to the cause that started everything. There is no "unique first cause" and "non-unique first cause". There is simply "the first cause". When I made my domino analogy, I was referring to a finite series. And the reason I was referring to a finite series is because its nonsense to talk of first causes in a infinite series.

[Adrift]

How can I discuss this with you? Having first causes (plural) and never one original first cause.

There is no such thing as plural first causes. That's why its called the FIRST cause.

[Soyeong]

Yes that would be nonsense. So the example of an infinite series of dominos with no first domino and no last domino to you is nonsense. Fine.

An infinite series dominos with no first domino and no last domino is not nonsense. However, having the dominos be secondary causes in a causal series that has no primary cause is nonsense. A causally ordered series where each of the secondary members derives is causal power from an earlier member must have a primary member from which they derive it which does not derive its causal power from anything else in the series.

A causal series where someone begets someone who begets someone else, where each member has an independent ability to cause a new member, could in theory go on forever without having a primary member. However, dominoes do not have the ability to fall over independently on their own and must derive their causal power from an earlier member.

[Adrift]

You know, it occurs to me 37818 that a whole lot of misunderstanding could be avoided if you familiarized yourself with these terms. Its like you have an idea of what they mean, but then you use them in ways that no one else uses them, and then expect everyone to understand what you're talking about. Its sort of like when I've talked to Mormons who use many of the same Christian terms and phrases, but put a unique spin on them so that they mean something different, or so that imply something different.

[Teallaura]

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.

Um, actually, in an eternal universe, they could always be in a state of falling. Eternal domino tracks falling eternally - and probably never actually hitting the ground. In such a universe there would not be a need for a primary cause.

And the cat would be both dead and alive, yes, I know...


Now, in Bible's actual argument, this is nonsense. He's already allowed that the universe is caused so yep, we need an original Domino. I want extra cheese, please!

[Teallaura]

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

Stop doing that. The problem is your example which makes zero sense with your argument. If you allow multiple first causes then you also allow multiple first events so you end up with a group of unconnected first events - welcome to the multiverse. This line of argument has the same exact problem - it only leads to the question 'where did all the first causes come from'? Since the one universe we know changes constantly and shows definite signs of being caused we conclude that it was caused by something or Someone. But a club of such 'uncaused causes' becomes problematic and undermines the assumption that they are uncaused - so we're probably not looking far enough back. There should be a real uncaused existence behind the curtain somewhere but clearly not in our domino players.

In other words, you're pushing the problem backwards, not solving it. It's simpler and smarter to just start at the beginning - a caused universe with one Prime Mover. Deal with singling out that Mover so that there is only One (hint: eternality) and work your way forward from there.

And don't blame others when they can't follow your examples. Soy was mistaken, in my opinion, but he wasn't trying to disregard the example - he doesn't see an application. He's right about that, by the way. It's a really poor example for what you seem to be arguing.

Tell you what, why don't you just tell us what it is you are trying to prove?

[Teallaura]

An infinite series dominos with no first domino and no last domino is not nonsense. However, having the dominos be secondary causes in a causal series that has no primary cause is nonsense. A causally ordered series where each of the secondary members derives is causal power from an earlier member must have a primary member from which they derive it which does not derive its causal power from anything else in the series.

A causal series where someone begets someone who begets someone else, where each member has an independent ability to cause a new member, could in theory go on forever without having a primary member. However, dominoes do not have the ability to fall over independently on their own and must derive their causal power from an earlier member.

You're being way overly rational.

He was actually discussing the hypothetical. It doesn't make his argument any better at all - worse, in fact - but he was working on the idea of origin. Unfortunately, he is mistakenly assuming they aren't causally ordered merely because they have no beginning or end.

I'm gonna go get coffee. This is the kind of discussion people normally have while on LSD but I'm too much of a prude for that (i.e. I'm not stupid enough to use LSD) so I'll settle for expresso...

[Soyeong]

Um, actually, in an eternal universe, they could always be in a state of falling. Eternal domino tracks falling eternally - and probably never actually hitting the ground. In such a universe there would not be a need for a primary cause.

And the cat would be both dead and alive, yes, I know...


Now, in Bible's actual argument, this is nonsense. He's already allowed that the universe is caused so yep, we need an original Domino. I want extra cheese, please!

How did the dominos get to a state of internally falling? Either the series was created in a state of falling, which which case the creator of the series is the primary cause, or the series was created in a state of being upright and something caused the series to begin falling, in which case that would be a type of primary cause. Either way, there can't be a infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause. If there was no primary cause, then the dominos wouldn't exist in a causal series.

[Teallaura]

There is no such thing as plural first causes. That's why its called the FIRST cause.

Think multiverse.

Yes, it's unnecessarily messy and ultimately silly, but it can be theorized. And yes, I think you end up having to move back to a First first cause which makes it even sillier.

Philosophy or drugs: which is worse for your brain?

[Soyeong]

[Teallaura]

How did the dominos get to a state of internally falling? Either the series was created in a state of falling, which which case the creator of the series is the primary cause, or the series was created in a state of being upright and something caused the series to begin falling, in which case that would be a type of primary cause. Either way, there can't be a infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause. If there was no primary cause, then the dominos wouldn't exist in a causal series.

They didn't 'get' that way - they were always that way. Here's the funky part - in such a universe, the series is necessarily not causal. They just fall in an infinite series of falls but one does not cause the other and removing a domino won't stop the chain.

This would be the part where physics leaves the building disgusted, yes I know.

[Adrift]

Think multiverse.

Yes, it's unnecessarily messy and ultimately silly, but it can be theorized. And yes, I think you end up having to move back to a First first cause which makes it even sillier.

Philosophy or drugs: which is worse for your brain?

Even assuming a multiverse, when one refers to a "first cause" they're referring to the cause that started it all. I've never heard anyone refer to the multiverse as a first cause (not unless they think the multiverse is eternal).

Source: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

In philosophy, the uncreated or self-created cause to which every series of causes must ultimately be traced. Used by ancient Greek thinkers, the concept was adopted by the Christian tradition and became the basis of one version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. According to this argument, every observed event is the result of a series of causes that must end in a first cause, which is God. The argument was given its classic formulation by St. Thomas Aquinas. It was rejected by many later thinkers, including David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

© Copyright Original Source