Causal Argument, Introduction

@salima,

Quote:

The infinite state that exists outside of our universe, or for this matter, any other universes: That state to which we cannot set any arbitrary boundaries. It's an infinite expanse and we cannot think of it as being finite. It is this external Absolute, to which the universe is expanding, and it is expanding to the Absolute because it is driven to by the dynamic force of mind that initiated the series that preceded the big bang.

In my opinion there is nothing beyond Universe itself, and that's very much why, I have a deterministic Holistic position on Reality...Time/space is a simulation in A, witch is a priori, such that the Future of things as to be there already, somewhere, like a three/four-dimensional set of frozen frames in a film, and such that, in this way, there is no need of an real expansion, as also, a no true outside either, of Universe itself...The "THING" is, must be, DEAD, like in a Nirvana state or something ! ...we as Entities, as parts, of this whole, as manifestations, have the impression of Motion, caused out of ORDER, literally, this means, that our position in the Whole gives a certain perspective of it, reflecting it, from our point of view...a game of relativity, an effect, not a "fact" ! ...the way I see it, we are like standing Lamps fazing in and out,"flashing", in an electrical circuit...But the curious thing on this vision, is that is very similar to the one presented initially...The Whole itself, without true movement, without Time and Space, or true matter and Energy is a simple State of Being, an Absolute Thing, Unified and DEAD, for itself...its A, its GOD !

(continues)

...AAA its just A...OMNIPOTENT, OMNI-PRESENT (a priori) and OMNISCIENT, that, through ORDER reflected on Entities inside himself...

regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;100459 wrote:

But the universe has been here for far longer than the human race has. So, why would you think our contact with one another has anything to do with the innate property (from your theory, vibrations) of existence?

The formula for life was written at the time of the singularity, it was inevitable that we as conscious beings developed into what we are. You dont deny a cake before its baked. Whats is everything we see and feel, if its not vibrations. Why cant we have a harmony of interest? Life's purpose appears to be the ability to reason through our conscious mind and a common thread resounds, vibrates, through our debates.

@xris,

xris;100489 wrote:

The formula for life was written at the time of the singularity, it was inevitable that we as conscious beings developed into what we are. You dont deny a cake before its baked. Whats is everything we see and feel, if its not vibrations. Why cant we have a harmony of interest? Life's purpose appears to be the ability to reason through our conscious mind and a common thread resounds, vibrates, through our debates.

What has any of this to do with what I wrote? I think we're misunderstanding eachother.

You wrote:

Quote:

It could be claimed that on another level this harmony of vibrations is our contact with each other.

What did you mean by this?

@salima,

The argument for the argument is quite clear, as Salima has just posted what I would have posted myself. Thanks Salima.

The argument is a priori. Meaning there is a consistent, inherent, reasoning that does not rest upon experience. It does not begin with an empirical condition, or a more complex condition which would immediately raise the question as to what came before it.

I dsiagree that there did not have to be a Cause, because something always existed. The reasoning here I find doesn't follow, logically; because even our experience, which can come into play to show us which direction our thinking should follow, tells us that as we go back in time, the universe shrinks. Big bang cosmology is the right direction to follow. And considering our intuitive need to question all starting points more complex or involved than the one I've begun with (which Hegel began with also), then why not take this direction alll the way back to its most logical concluson and begin with an analysis of the what the absolute implies?

The argument is what Kant would call 'a synthetic cognition, a priori,' and this simply means it's a consistent whole from beginning to end, and it furthens ones pure understanding by offering a rational explanation for how the universe came to be.

Where in the whole of science or philosophy is there any other such explanation?

Show it to me, if one exists. Post it. I'll read it. And I'll tell you why it doesn't work by questioning the premise. If the premise is more complex, I'll beg the question: Where did these original conditions that form the basis of the model come from?

Zertheren begs the question to Xris, above. It's the natural thing to do.

The natural need to press the question regarding any more complex condition shows us which direction our reasoning should follow. We must begin with nothing ... then we must question what we mean by nothing ... then we must question what it is we have in mind when we attempt to grasp that absolute concept that reaches to infinity. We still have in mind the 'thought' of that absolute; and this is where we must begin. With the finite thought =B. Take ourselves out of this picture, but we stilll have the absolute. And if A, then B. It is impossible to refute this. If you think it is, then give it a try. You cannot refute the premise. It's impossible.

If again you chose to begin with a more complicated beginning, then the question is begged: What brought on these more complex conditions?

If we can beg the question the model/theory is missing something. If it's missing something it's incomplete. It's not the whole answer. The Causal Argument is complete. And the system/model/theory it presents works. Nothing else works. So why cast aside something that works in favour of a zillion other scenarios all assumed as possibilities but which offer no a priori certainty, and that do not work?

For Salima's doubt as to how intelligent design follows from the argument. The pure, dynamic force of mind that drove the series in which infinite Mass was generated, that force of mind is Pure Thought. It is an immaterial, pure, whole; and equal in its dynamic force to the Mass generated by it in its obtaining to the Absolute. At the end of its evolution, as Hegel might have put it, it resolves itself to the creation of all that we see ... and if we again follow what science tells us, creation is something that moved along a certain course, from the beginning, to what we have now. Creation was a development process wherein this Supreme Mind grew in its creative capacity through the very act of creation.

This would be a heretical idea to the Catholic Church, and many other religions; but this is what comes out of the Causal Argument.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100500 wrote:

The argument for the argument is quite clear, as Salima has just posted what I would have posted myself. Thanks Salima.

The argument is a priori. Meaning there is a consistent, inherent, reasoning that does not rest upon experience. It does not begin with an empirical condition, or a more complex condition which would immediately raise the question as to what came before it.

I dsiagree that there did not have to be a Cause, because something always existed. The reasoning here I find doesn't follow, logically; because even our experience, which can come into play to show us which direction our thinking should follow, tells us that as we go back in time, the universe shrinks. Big bang cosmology is the right direction to follow. And considering our intuitive need to question all starting points more complex or involved than the one I've begun with (which Hegel began with also), then why not take this direction alll the way back to its most logical concluson and begin with an analysis of the what the absolute implies?

The argument is what Kant would call 'a synthetic cognition, a priori,' and this simply means it's a consistent whole from beginning to end, and it furthens ones pure understanding by offering a rational explanation for how the universe came to be.

Where in the whole of science or philosophy is there any other such explanation?

Show it to me, if one exists. Post it. I'll read it. And I'll tell you why it doesn't work by questioning the premise. If the premise is more complex, I'll beg the question: Where did these original conditions that form the basis of the model come from?

If the question applies the model/theory fails. If it fails, I'll stick to the answer I've already found. It works. Nothing else works.

Its self circular...from the singularity to the furthest point in expansion is frozen...simulating movement, foward and backward, arising Time/Space itself, but AB and X inside him/it...everything goes a priori !... what could be simpler ? No Time, no Space, no Matter, no Energy, they are all effects, not "Things" !

besides, empirical does not have any real meaning if we look it this way...that's perception !

I see it as ORDER in the extreme, pure frozen Thought !!!

@Shostakovich phil,

I suppose it would be useless to point out that any argument with a priori necessary premises, and an a posteriori contingent conclusion, must be fallacious. This is just a truth of modal logic. (It is sometimes called the Rationalist fallacy).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;100510 wrote:

I suppose it would be useless to point out that any argument with a priori necessary premises, and an a posteriori contingent conclusion, must be fallacious. This is just a truth of modal logic. (It is sometimes called the Rationalist fallacy).

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100503 wrote:

Its self circular...from the singularity to the furthest point in expansion is frozen...simulating movement, foward and backward, arising Time/Space itself, but AB and X inside him/it...everything goes a priori !... what could be simpler ? No Time, no Space, no Matter, no Energy, they are all effects, not "Things" !

besides, empirical does not have any real meaning if we look it this way...that's perception !

I see it as ORDER in the extreme, pure frozen Thought !!!

This is one way to look at it. Somehow, this is a scary idea for me, however. But it's the logical deduction. We are all essentially the result of a Supreme Thought, squeezed into a concentrated finite state, in which the fundamental underlying essence is thought, highly concentrated, and divided into particulars that can be, should the Absolute Mind that has brought them into being, decide to make them once again, into a unified whole.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100513 wrote:

This is one way to look at it. Somehow, this is a scary idea for me, however. But it's the logical deduction. We are all essentially the result of a Supreme Thought, squeezed into a concentrated finite state, in which the fundamental underlying essence is thought, highly concentrated, and divided into particulars that can be, should the Absolute Mind that has brought them into being, decide to make them once again, into a unified whole.

Exactly as i see it...DEAD ! no motion, no NOTHING ! STILL !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100511 wrote:

Sorry??????????????

---------- Post added 10-29-2009 at 02:03 PM ----------

I guess there is no point in pointing out the you cannot derive a contingent conclusion from necessary premises. The truth table will show that. People will continue to try to construct a priori systems whatever the discoveries of logic. After all, there may just be a reason philosophers don't try that sort of thing anymore.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;100516 wrote:

Sorry??????????????

---------- Post added 10-29-2009 at 02:03 PM ----------

I guess there is no point in pointing out the you cannot derive a contingent conclusion from necessary premises. The truth table will show that.

The a posteriori contingent conclusion is an effect inside A...get it now ?

A is the beginning and the end of all things !
(But essentially its ORDER ! Its "frozen" LAW !)
We are not things, as common sense put it, just, "frozen" INFORMATION...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;100510 wrote:

I suppose it would be useless to point out that any argument with a priori necessary premises, and an a posteriori contingent conclusion, must be fallacious. This is just a truth of modal logic. (It is sometimes called the Rationalist fallacy).

This is a good criticism. It's the strongest one I've heard yet.

This is based on Kant's reasoning, as per his CPR.

But Kant is arguing against the known arguments of his time and that predated him. This is one of the reasons for his writing his Critique, sometimes held as a crushing degeat of metaphysics (when in fact, it's just the opposite).

Kant foresaw the possibility of overcoming this criticism and there is some complicated reasoning in his CPR that involves the only possible way around the critique. It's highly involved. In short, the criticism doesn't cancel out the possibility of a science of metaphysics wherein an a priori premises can lead to an a priori conclusion: A, B, and X, follow as a priori. Where the criticism applies is the deduction that the concrete universe follows from this X, through the action of B. This is a logical deduction: That the apparent intelligent design of the universe is the result of a higher intelligence (based upon the a priori reasoning of the argument). But Kant allows for this in his Critique on one condition.

If there is no way of relating the argument to what we actually experience (if it is truly fallacious) for it has no possible empirical grounds for its support, and we need not and should not take it seriously. But if it can provide a rational account for the world we are able to experience (if the argument can tell us why the world we experience is the way it is), then it should be taken seriously. This is a point that Kant makes and it is easily missed in his critical philosophy.

Kant allows for the empirical validation of an a priori argument only if the empirical evidence can be accounted for by the argument (if it does not disagree or conflict with it), and if the argument necessiates that this is the way the empirical evidence (the world we experience) should be.

None of the supposed a priori arguments that Kant had at his disposal could demonstrate that the empirical conclusions (the world we experience) necessarily followed from them. They were in fact, fallacious. But Kant could see beyond these arguments and hoped for something more.

What empirical evidence is there in support of the Causal Argument:

The expanding universe.
The forward movement of creation from a simple state to a more complex state.

Predictions: The eventual cessation of time and the transition of all things to an infinite (timeles) form wherein they are no longer subject to change or decay.

There are other predictions/considerations of a philocophical and theological nature; but I'm not positing these as they go beyond the scope of the argument.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;100493 wrote:

What has any of this to do with what I wrote? I think we're misunderstanding eachother.

You wrote:

What did you mean by this?

I dont want to dilute this thread but it was just me musing on the possibility that when we are harmonically tuned, we may just be communicating certain thoughts and information. The idea we are all vibrations and our existance is determined by them,it has to be considered and our place in this illusion.

The start of this universe could have been announced by a ripple of vibration that spread like the butterfly's wings upon the void.

@Shostakovich phil,

if we look at the Past its only ONE past, not several different pasts...the future should be no different, its ONE, and its there...

...Reality cannot grow or shrink so it as to be there...somewhere, somehow !
..could we describe movement and events as variation in the wave length, like changing from one radio channel to another ? but they all are already there...(the channels)

they (the things) have all to be a priori, otherwise they would be transcendent to each other, no reason to "communicate" unless they were linked from the very beginning...

@xris,

xris;100523 wrote:

I dont want to dilute this thread but it was just me musing on the possibility that when we are harmonically tuned, we may just be communicating certain thoughts and information. The idea we are all vibrations and our existance is determined by them,it has to be considered and our place in this illusion.

The start of this universe could have been announced by a ripple of vibration that spread like the butterfly's wings upon the void.

This is a thought. It's possible.

My reasoning is along the lines of strict necessity. Where the effect must necessarily follow from the stated Cause, and cannot be seen as not following. Again, if A then B. If not A, then not B.

If we can say that in the beginning there was no such thing as the Absolute, then nothing.

Then why the universe?

Because of A, then B. Then all that follows.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100529 wrote:

This is a thought. It's possible.

My reasoning is along the lines of strict necessity. Where the effect must necessarily follow from the stated Cause, and cannot be seen as not following. Again, if A then B. If not A, then not B.

If we can say that in the beginning there was no such thing as the Absolute, then nothing.

Then why the universe?

Because of A, then B. Then all that follows.

Quote:

Because of A, then B. Then all that follows.

...this is the axis of Order...and i see it frozen...

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100521 wrote:

This is a good criticism. It's the strongest one I've heard yet.

This is based on Kant's reasoning, as per his CPR.

But Kant is arguing against the known arguments of his time and that predated him. This is one of the reasons for his writing his Critique, sometimes held as a crushing degeat of metaphysics (when in fact, it's just the opposite).

Kant foresaw the possibility of overcoming this criticism and there is some complicated reasoning in his CPR that involves the only possible way around the critique. It's highly involved. In short, the criticism doesn't cancel out the possibility of a science of metaphysics wherein an a priori premises can lead to an a priori conclusion: A, B, and X, follow as a priori. Where the criticism applies is the deduction that the concrete universe follows from this X, through the action of B. This is a logical deduction: That the apparent intelligent design of the universe is the result of a higher intelligence (based upon the a priori reasoning of the argument). But Kant allows for this in his Critique on one condition.

If there is no way of relating the argument to what we actually experience (if it is truly fallacious) for it has no possible empirical grounds for its support, and we need not and should not take it seriously. But if it can provide a rational account for the world we are able to experience (if the argument can tell us why the world we experience is the way it is), then it should be taken seriously. This is a point that Kant makes and it is easily missed in his critical philosophy.

Kant allows for the empirical validation of an a priori argument only if the empirical evidence can be accounted for by the argument (if it does not disagree or conflict with it), and if the argument necessiates that this is the way the empirical evidence (the world we experience) should be.

None of the supposed a priori arguments that Kant had at his disposal could demonstrate that the empirical conclusions (the world we experience) necessarily followed from them. They were in fact, fallacious. But Kant could see beyond these arguments and hoped for something more.

What empirical evidence is there in support of the Causal Argument:

The expanding universe.
The forward movement of creation from a simple state to a more complex state.

Predictions: The eventual cessation of time and the transition of all things to an infinite (timeles) form wherein they are no longer subject to change or decay.

There are other predictions/considerations of a philocophical and theological nature; but I'm not positing these as they go beyond the scope of the argument.

I am sorry, but I do not see how what you just posted (from what I understand of it) deals with the objection. Are you not trying to derive an empirical conclusion from a priori premises? And is that not fallacious? Kant (at least) proposed "transcendental arguments". But these are just as questionable.

@kennethamy,

The only thing that i can conclude is that Logic is temporal, another effect, from the simple state of Being of A itself ...witch is pure Present, Instantaneous ! Pure Unification !

@Shostakovich phil,

Before I begin, I would like to applaud you for the time and effort you put into forming this argument. I would also like to make it clear that I do not agree with your arguments or your conclusion. I do not intend on continuing to debate this subject with you after this response, for I believe that it would take up a lot of my time. Whether you agree with my counter-argument or not, I hope that you accept my response as a cordial and sincere disagreement.

The words quoted in bold are yours, and the un-bold words following are direct responses to the previous quotes.

"The most significant conclusion reached by these four principles is that the universe is not the accidental work of mere random and indeterminate material forces, but the result of a pure, dynamic force of mind that infinitely transcends, yet governs the whole of the universe, and everything in the universe."

The first misconception you have is that atheists or naturalists claim that the universe is the result of random, indeterminate material forces. Naturalists believe that the universe is the result of determinate, law-like regularities that exhibit no volition or will.

"This Causal Argument reaches this same conclusion but it pushes the regression of all things even further back, beyond the singularity, to the point that provides for its premise, and that can rationally be defined as an ultimate first state."
"This ultimate first state, for the lack of no more appropriate definition, can also be defined as the simplest of all possible states, and it is from this simplest of all possible states that the universals mentioned, advanced through the causal process defined through these principles, to the state in which we now find all things."

This hypothetical state, before the singularity, seems to be nothing more than a result of guesswork. We know nothing about a state before the singularity.

"It is of no small significance that cosmologists have estimated the age of the universe at roughly 15 billion years, and have concluded that the universe did have an ultimate beginning. This in turn means that the universe is not, as the antithesis suggests, something that has always simply existed."

It is a common misconception that cosmologists and physicists have concluded that the universe had a beginning. The big bang theory, as evidence of a beginning of ultimate reality or existence, is a matter of perspective. The big bang was the beginning of the expansion of a state that was already in existence, and we call that state the singularity, which contained all of the physical forces in one, as well as what we now call time and space.

In regards to the state of nothing: it can be said that such a state is impossible. The word nothing is very subjective, and in my opinion it is not representative of reality. Even if there was a state that was void of matter and mass, it could still be described as a state and a state is something. The void itself can be described as something; that is if we are not going by the common sense, dictionary definition of the word.

"The fact that the universe exists proves that there never was, and never could have been, a state such as nothing from which only nothing could have followed. That is, there always must have been, however infinitesimal (and this is the crux of the whole difficulty), something from which something else has followed."

As I have stated, I believe that the word nothing is very subjective. To speak of a state of nothing as if we have knowledge of the possibility of such a state is a resulting flaw from the belief in the attainment of knowledge by pure reason, and a flaw in our language's representation of reality.

You've said that the universe had a beginning, and yet you also say that there has never been a state of nothing from which something has followed. This seems to be a contradiction. If everything in existence has followed from something else then that equates to infinite causation, and that means that existence itself has never had a beginning. Infinite causation is unintelligible to me. It's possible that causality, at least at some level, is an illusion that the human mind is susceptible to. Maybe some circumstances or conditions of existence don't need to be caused. Like the subjective notions of nothing and something, beginning and ending may be more representative of human psychology than of existence itself. Please keep in mind that I am not claiming that existence has no beginning or first cause. I am simply stating this as a point for consideration.

"The two opposing (in form) forces that were generated by the causal process driven by this dynamic relation were:

1. The mass of the universe, and separate yet related to this:
2. The pure, dynamic force of mind by which this mass was generated into existence.

It should be apparent that the term mind, however, is not being used here in any ordinary sense of the term, for there is nothing implied here other than the pure relation of mind expressed by means of the relation between the A and B representations, and between B and X, as the derivative in the movement of B to A; with B splitting off entirely from X with it's obtaining to A; and there is also nothing in the whole operation of the series proposed that suggests anything other than a kind of mechanical operation.

It is only upon the end of this series, wherein B splits off from X, and obtains to A, that it becomes possible to suggest something other than a simply mechanical operation; for the divergent mass of forces generated by B in its movement towards A, must as a whole be thought of as being perfectly counterbalanced by, and tied to B in such a manner that within B must rest the potential to govern the whole of these separate, material forces, generated by its movement to A. This potential must be considered as iherent to B by reason of its pure, or immaterial form, so that as such, B must have the capacity to both inhabit, and to know, at the most fundamental level, the matter of which thel universe is composed, and thus, to direct the material fabric of the universe, at its most fundamental level, according to its design."

The quote above seems to suggest that the presence of B proves or at least implies that its divergence from A, and thoughtful movement back to A, was more than the result of natural, law-like, causal regularities. The problem with this claim is that such a divergence and "reversion" to and from A can be explained without intentional or volitional design. The second problem is that A is nothing more than a hypothetical state (before the singularity) that has only been imagined by B, but has never been verified by empirical observation or logical decidability.

This then provides the grounds for a concluding principle regarding the intelligent design apparent in the universe, in that the regress of this series point back to an ultimate beginning, predating even the earliest beginning know to science; and to what can best be defined as the simplest of all possible relations of mind. The causal process following from this beginning implies a movement from ultimate simplicity to ultimate complexity and a transition from this ultimate beginning to the infinite mass of the singularity, as well as a transition of the pure relation of mind that drove this series from its ultimate beginning, and its simplest possible state of being, to its final stage, and its obtaining to its greatest possible state of being as Absolute Spirit, Absolute Mind, and Absolute Being.

None of this provides any grounds for the proposition of intelligent design; as I have already demonstrated that the previously stated ideas that are meant to lead to this conclusion are flawed. Also, what is this final stage you speak of? The development of the human mind is not the final causal stage of the big bang, assuming that there is one.

"Futher, although the present empiricist worldview adopts not only a skeptical but at its worst, a hostile stand to the thought of such an Ultimate Reality, it is this one Supreme Reality that accounts for the serious anomalies that otherwise plague the favourite child of this worldview -evolution."

This is just another way of saying that intelligent design is the only explanation that can account for the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution by way of natural selection. This is a restating of the theory of evolution by way of intelligent design. The "anomalies" you speak of are only considered to be so by those who do not accept the theory of natural selection. The one "anomaly" you cited, that of relatively rapid speciation, still fits into the theory of natural selection, and some of the genes that are responsible have even been found:
Rapidly Evolving Gene Contributes To Origin Of Species

"What took place?

Why did it take place?

The two questions are not the same.

There is no doubt that cosmologists, for instance, who now lay claim to a knowledge of all the fundamental laws of physics, are able to explain through these laws those events are thought to have taken place since the Planck time onwards; and while in this cosmologists have gone much further than the vast majority of philosophers could ever hope, this knowledge, when the question is taken in its ultimate sense, amounts not to an understanding of why those events took place, but merely to an understanding of what took place."

Indeed the question of what took place and the question of why it took place are different. However, physicists can tell us what cosmic events took place and they can also explain to us why they took place. The only cosmic why that has not been answered is the question of why the big bang happened in the first place or what caused it (I believe).

For the purpose of discussion, let's say that we couldn't answer the second question (why). In no way does not having an answer for a problem justify the making of propositions based on intuitive imagination. In other words, just because we don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean that we should propose a being or person to fill that gap.

"The critical impasse of an infinite regress arising from the inescapable human need to press the question as far back as possible will always prevent mathematical theorists from overstepping their bounds, and will always confirm the need for pure philosophy."

"Hence, in this failed distinction concering the what and the why, strict empiricists err whenever they assert the authority of science over philosophy and pure reason with regard to those questions that belong not to science, but to philosophy."

You look at philosophy and science as two completely separate things, but I don't. Science is but the offspring of empirical epistemic philosophy. It is empiricism in action. It only separated from philosophy because its practice was more formal and active than traditional philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that provides for the logical clarification of thought. What you call "pure philosophy" is nothing more than pure reason, also known as epistemic rationalism, the belief in the attainment of knowledge by reason alone. Rationalism has no monopoly on epistemic philosophy.

"Finally, the only possible remaining objection that the nature of such a Being as an immaterial spirit is itself an impossible, self-contradictory idea, is the same as to argue that a reduction of matter to such a simple underlying essence as pure spirit is itself an impossible, self-contradictory idea; yet science now discloses a reduction of matter beyond atoms to ever simpler forms ever further distanced from hard matter, and at what point are we to assume that this reduction of matter abates?"

The reduction should abate when the matter can no longer be reduced. The reduction of matter to atoms, and atoms to sub-atomic or quantum particles, is not a reduction to an immaterial spirit, and so it is not equivalent to such a reduction.

"For empiricists, it becomes a matter of deciding upon those terms and conditions that best express their central dogma that only matter exists."

I'm not so sure that all empiricists are materialists. Empiricism doesn't necessarily entail materialism. I think that most empiricists would describe themselves as monists or physicalists. Physicalists hold that physics is the language of science, and that everything that is known to exist can be described by the language of physics.

Your arguments are clearly influenced by Kantian philosophy. One of Kant's main flaws was that he did not distinguish the concrete, perceptual knowledge of objects from the abstract, conceptual knowledge of thoughts. Kant was a rationalist, and so he placed reason above perception. I'm an empiricist, and so I hold that perception comes before reason and logic.

In conclusion, and with all due respect, these principles amount to a mere re-articulation of the causal argument, and the causal argument is nothing new. The argument falls way short of the height requirement that is needed to justify or verify the proposition of intelligent design and theism. Theism is the thesis that the universe was created by and is affected by supernatural agency, and none of the arguments you stated support such a thesis. Furthermore, theists attribute characteristics to their Gods that contradict the state of the world and the universe we live in, and this contradiction has been called out by the problem of evil among others. The causal argument alone can only be used to support the thesis of deism, but the causal argument falls short of logical decidability, for the question of whom or what created the universe can also be applied to the hypothetical creator and ad-infinitum.

Thank you for taking the time to read my counter-argument. Whether you concur or not, I hope that it gives you some food for thought and consideration.

@Shostakovich phil,

Philosophy Forum

Causal Argument, Introduction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know