Causal Argument, Introduction

@hue-man,

In response to hue-man,

Naturalists believe that the universe is the result of determinate, law-like regularities that exhibit no volition or will.

Thanks for the clarification.

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.

I believe we can be justified in drawing a logical deduction. When you use the term 'we' you are talking about those who agree with your thinking, which disallows the use of pure reason to reach logical deductions.

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.

This is what the Causal Argument states. The absolute can be called a state. So can the A and B representations.

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.

Language is abstract. So inherent in it is a flawed representation of reality, that we can however still make sense out of, if we put the facts that we know together. Reason can employ these same facts in such a way that we can arrive at certain a priori principles.

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 fact of Causation is demonstrated by the simple fact that we exist and at one time, before our births, we did not exist. The regression of all things back to a singularity also suggests a Causation. Nothing acts on its own to bring itself into existence, and the only exception I can understand to this would be the A representation that I've defined in the argument. Once you think outside of this Absolute, everything else is Caused, and it is Caused by the Absolute.

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.

Empirical observation is not possible when striving for the understanding of an ultimate beginning. Here pure reason demands a priori principles to explain the why behind the big bang, and the expansion of the universe, which the Causal Argument does. There is no reason for doubt here, if the principles are a priori. The model works, regardless of the lack of possible empirical validation. The empirical observation is there at the end of the argument if the argument fits what we observe, and there is no contradiction here. The argument does not contradict anything we find in the field of science, or any of the empirical evidence. It fits the facts. And in this regard, the Causal Argument provides a rational explanation for why the facts are as they are.

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.

You haven't showed they are flawed unless you've proved they are not a priori, and certain. The alternative is: the principles are a posteriori, grounded upon experience, and consequently, uncertain. But they are not a posteriori. So they are not 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.

The final stage is explained by the Principle of Equal Relation. The inevitable split off of B from X, in its obtaining to A. This was the final stage in the series that preceded the big bang, and that caused the big bang. The preceding series (which is beyond empirical observation) answers the why of the singularity.

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

After reading this article I still have the same objection to the theory of evolution. It still does not answer the why. At its best it only answers the what. There is still a driving force behind it, and all attempts to give this force a material form fail.

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.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the lack of answers here justifies any alternative argument. The Causal Argument is grounded upon a priori principles that follow, one from the other, necessarily. And if the conclusion follows that there is an immaterial Being that is the Cause of the order we see then I can't ignore the argument. It also fits the facts and explains the inconsistencies in any and all physicalist attempts to explain them. Waiting for a phsicalist explanation that fully accounts for the inconsistencies is not for me, an option.

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.

Actually, I hate to look at any two disciplines as entirely unrelated. What I say in the argument are that the ends of philosophy and empirically grounded sciences are not the same, and should not be the same. Philosophy does not need to restrict itself to investigations having to do with empirically grounded sciences.

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.

Here you state 'not a reduction to an immaterial spirit' as though we have an adequate knowledge of what an immaterial spirit is in Reality. This, we cannot know, by your reasoning; and I agree. I'm making a guess here, so are you; so how is your guess any different from mine? It is different because you refuse to believe that pure spirit is the underlying essence of all things (even though here we have no knowledge of what this amounts to in Reality). I chose to believe that the reduction goes all the way to this pure spirit which I can only understand as an indivisible whole. This does not mean this individible whole cannot be divided into particulars, that can be put together as atoms and the concrete material universe that we observe. The Causal Argument affords rational, a priori grounds for this conclusion. Empiricists/materialists will always be searching for that invisible matter that is so minute that it's beyond the powers of our observation. All they can offer are endless conjectures. The Causal Argument offers a self-consistent model to explain the physical world.

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.

You're being fooled by the simple title of the argument. The two arguments are entirely different. One explains the singularity and provides an explanation for the why behind the big bang. Since when does the other causal argument explain such?

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.

It is one argument, not many; and it provides one proof, not multiple proofs. You've also failed to understand it, but it is not easy to understand, so I can appreciate this. Why do I know you've failed to understand it: the question asked above that is answered by the Principle of Equal Relation, and the failure to understand that the impasse of an infinite regression is also overcome, but which you refer to in the following:

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.

The argument begins with the A and B representations, not an Eternally existent Being called God. The argument, with its conclusion, offers a rational explanation for what the idea of such a Being entails. The A representation can be called a definition that adds to the understanding of what is meant by such a Being. But this again, is not easily grasped, so I can understand why you've failed to understand how the argument overcomes the impasse of an infinite regression.

I have an argument that addresses the argument from evil, but it's not presented here as the purpose is different. There's no point arguing theolgical considerations in an argument meant only to provide rational grounds for the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. If we have no rational grounds for such a belief, what's the point of arguing for the omnibenevolence of a such a Being?

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.

You've provided some strong points that I will take into cosideration, and you have my thanks. I appreciate the feedback, and there is no need to respond. I've presented my views for members who are still reading this thread.

*My text is in bold

@Shostakovich phil,

I am not posting another counter-argument, for your response is the re-articulation that I expected, but I must say that your argument is not hard to grasp for me at all; I just happen to disagree with you. I stated that infinite regression or infinite causation is unintelligible to me, and your principle, no matter how articulate it may be, does not make the proposition more conclusive. Your argument, which claimed to refute atheism and naturalism, could have been summed up in much more simpler terms.

Even though I don't want to make another formal counter-argument, I need to call you out on something.

After reading this article I still have the same objection to the theory of evolution. It still does not answer the why. At its best it only answers the what. There is still a driving force behind it, and all attempts to give this force a material form fail.

This is your personal opinion. The why you are looking for is a who. You will not be satisfied unless the explanation is a who instead of a what. You are proposing things that cannot be verified by empirical observation or logical conclusion. You can claim nearly anything by intuitive reasoning, but that does not make it true.

@hue-man,

hue-man;100581 wrote:

... Your belief in the use of pure reason to attain knowledge is nothing more than the belief in the attainment of knowledge by intuition, and I believe that such a claim warrants skepticism.

If you understand the argument you're an exception. Most people won't grasp it, so for that I admire you.

My belief system is more complicated than the Causal Argument. I respect skepticism. That's why I haven't fallen for any organized religion, or any of the past arguments purpoting to prove God's existence. Those arguments are not at all similar to mine. I have to put together what I understand from my own experience, from what I have learned from big bang cosmology, and from what I've read in archaeology etc.; as well as previous philosophical/theological arguments, etc., and putting them all together to form a picture. In this regard, I still favour the Causal Argument (although you can obviously call me biased) as it answers questions for which I otherwise would not have answers, and the argument (called so because it is open to criticism such as you've offered) still answers them sufficiently. I'm not, in my reasoning, divorcing my speculation from Reality. The argument I have explains the reality I see before me better than anything else can. Without the argument I've posted there are just too many unanswered questions and I don't care to wait a million years (an impossible hope) for their answers when I think they can be answered here and now, and through the use of pure reason. I think pure reason is too easy to discredit and ciriticise for empiricists; but every discipline is the offspring of reason, and I choose to hold it in higher esteem.

The most difficult, and most fundamental question for me is: Is there a Supreme Being or is there not?

Despite the criticism and skepticism the Causal Argument provides a rational justification for such a belief, but it also defines what is meant by God. There are two characteristics for which the argument provides rational grounds: omnipotence, and omniscience. If you follow the argument, as you say you can, these are the two characteristics that come out of it. Omnibenevolence is a third characteristic that lies outside the scope of the argument. It can be addressed in a separate work.

There is no other argument anywhere else that justifies the belief in a Supreme Being with these two characterisitcs, or for that matter, even the existence of such a Being at all, even though past arguments claim to prove such. The only philosopher that attempted any proof along the same lines that I've presented was Hegel, but he only went as far as the premise. From there he went no further. There are no a priori principles that he formulated that would take us from that premise (beginning with his simple immediate or the Absolute) to the universe as it exists now; so in the end, Hegel did not offer a rational justification for the belief in the existence of a Supreme Mind that transcends the universe, and that yet acts to guide the universe in its course to whatever end this Being has in mind.

If the Causal Argument is all wrong, of course, death will simply be the end of the matter. But death I feel with all my intuition, gut feelings, and everything I've come to know, is not the end of the matter.

At this point, it comes down to a question of faith. But faith transcends all questioning. It needs no rational proof or justification, as it's an intuitive gut feeling at the deepest level. This is what I have, but the Causal Argument bolsters it and underlies it and holds it up ... to the point where my faith/understanding cannot yield to any onsalught of criticism or counterarguments.

So here, our two separate ways of looking at things are at odds, and there's not much to be said.

As I said to my father (a staunch atheist) when I was a teenager, if there is a God you'll find that out after you die, when you wake up. If there isn't one, and death is the end of the matter, you'll never know it.

As for the belief in a Supreme Being, the onus is on those who believe in such a Being to defend that belief. There is no onus on atheists to defend the absence of belief ... they simply assert that they haven't been given any grounds to justify such a belief. I've presented the CA for those who believe in the existence of such a Being, so they can bolster this belief, as I have mine.

If you have no such belief in the first place, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to turn that absence of belief into belief ... regardless of however sound the reasoning may be. I am not expecting very much concensus, or agreement here, and where empiricists are concerned, I expect none at all.

So maybe you can call still look upon me as a Realist, despite my seemingly overt respect for pure reason.

@Shostakovich phil,

This is a result of the terror induced by man's realization that he doesn't have an ontologically objective answer to the meaning of his existence.

@hue-man,

hue-man;100586 wrote:

This is a result of the terror induced by man's realization that he doesn't have an ontologically objective answer to the meaning of his existence.

I have no terror. Only a willingness to understand. If I truly had no objective answer, then I would have/feel no more, no less terror than you.

Let's not quibble.

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100587 wrote:

I have no terror. Only a willingness to understand. If I truly had no objective answer, then I would have/feel no more, no less terror than you.

Let's not quibble.

I'm sorry if I seemed like I was being trivial, but your statements imply underlying emotions. Terror may have been the wrong word, but fear or dissatisfaction with the unknown is what I see.

Also, natural selection is the answer to the why, and the what is evolution.

---------- Post added 10-30-2009 at 12:50 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;100554 wrote:

Natural Selection does n ?t necessarily impedes that mutations in genes come with a deterministic perspective...
I just don?t buy the idea of Random mutations !
( a random, random, mutation, one of this days, might well turn us into stone !...:bigsmile:)

Determinism is the thesis that every event in the universe has a prior cause. It is not a thesis of intelligent or intentional design. A random mutation may not only turn you into a stone. A random mutation may also give you a mental disability or a serious dysmorphic body feature. I suppose that you also believe that these mutations are intentional.

Random (meaning spontaneous) mutations are naturally selected if they are useful to the survival of a species.

@hue-man,

hue-man;100588 wrote:

I'm sorry if I seemed like I was being trivial, but your statements imply underlying emotions. Terror may have been the wrong word, but fear or dissatisfaction with the unknown is what I see.

Also, natural selection is the answer to the why, and the what is evolution.

My apologies for continuing this back and forth rally when you hoped you wouldn't have to spend so much time on this. If you're pressed for more important matters, please attend to them. Don't let me keep you hanging on. But ...

I agree only with 'dissatisfaction with the unknown.' I have no fear or terror of the unknown. Maybe that's why I never fear or close my eyes when watching those silly, and supposedly scary movies, like Halloween on television. Rather, I tend to laugh at all the stupidity. And we are all finite beings with finite powers of observation and understanding, so I tend to think that we are all accustomed to living with the unknown as a part of our everday, practical lives. But generally speaking, we never fear the unknown until we see the gun pointing in our direction and the bloody thirsty murderer with his finger on the trigger.

This describes me, at least. Not that I've ever had a gun pointing in my direction.

Dissatisfaction with the unknown is something that drives even scientistific studies, is it not? The same holds true with philosophical speculation ... as above.

My basic instinct is to press the question of origin as far as possible. Give me the empirical grounds for natural selection and evolution, and I accept it as far as it goes; no point for arguing here. But I cannot confine my questioning, put it in a straighjacket, and prevent it from inquiring into what took place first. What preceded the first single celled organism? What preceded the formation of the Earth? What preceded the formation of galaxies and stars?

With big bang cosmology astrophysicists and cosmologists can answer these questions satisfactorily, up to a point. They stop at the singularity. Yet the singularity is another concept and here again we can press the question: From where the singularity? The absence of an answer from science and the possibility of a solution somewhere down the line does not negate or refute the Causal Argument that provides a solution as to the why for the singularity. You cannot point to any other argument anywhere that provides a rational explanation for the why where this is concerned.

There is no other explanation that accounts for the singularity. You can however, dismiss the singularity as irrelevant, but it just happens that the singularity is the subject of speculation even in the field of big bang cosmology, and it just happens that my Causal Argument necessitates it.

Is this a coincidence?

It is not something that I planned or manipulated into the argument for devious reasons. It just comes out of the argument, necessarily.

The Causal Argument however does not begin with a singularity. It begins with the analysis of what an absolute state, void of all that now exists, means or implies. It offers a criticism of where Kant's thinking went wrong at this point in his formulation of the first antinomy, and this is simply enough stated: His judgment was grounded upon the very thing he dismissed in metaphysics -an appeal to the magic wand of so-called common sense. Here again, the argument I've posted provides the means of overcoming this first obstacle on the path of pure reason. And it offers an a priori solution to this first antinomy.

Now to end, to say there may be other possible solutions to explain the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, does not do away with the Causal Argument, but only steers ones thinking around it, to avoid it. The Causal Argument can't be dismissed by an appeal to other possible solutions that do not yet exist. And if a Supreme Being is necessitated by the logical conclusion reached in the argument, no amount of criticism is going to eradicate that necessary concluson. The only possibility here lies in presenting an alternative empirically grounded solution that answers all the same questions, but here the philosophical problem of the infinite regress arises, and if you begin with an empirically grounded premise the question is: From where did these empirical conditions originate?

You will not be able to provide the answer, because there is no possible empirically grounded answer. An empirically grounded pretended solution defies all logic and also it ignores our natural intuitive need to press the question regarding the origin of all things as far as logically possible.

Why natural selection? Why evolution? Why matter? Why spacetime? Why an Absolute first state? The regress points to the only answer and the only answer, so far removed from the world we sense, can come from pure reason; and pure reason drives itself to ask such questions, not because of some primal fear, or terror of the unknown, but because of the simple need to know.

When someone climbs a mountain, there is no need to ask why.

@Shostakovich phil,

Quote:

Random (meaning spontaneous) mutations are naturally selected if they are useful to the survival of a species.

Spontaneous just means one thing, Magical...now, don?t tell me what natural selection is, because i?m informed well enough...before Darwin I was already a fan of Herbert Spencer work...the last e book I read was LIFE what a Concept, and I must say, its a brilliant book. Regardless of that I don?t find it satisfactory, when dangerous words as random or spontaneous come in to play...I obviously believe in Natural selection just not in truly random mutations...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100618 wrote:

Spontaneous just means one thing, Magical...now, don?t tell me what natural selection is, because i?m informed well enough...before Darwin I was already a fan of Herbert Spencer work...the last e book I read was LIFE what a Concept, and I must say, its a brilliant book. Regardless of that I don?t find it satisfactory, when dangerous words as random or spontaneous come in to play...I obviously believe in Natural selection just not in truly random mutations...

Spontaneous and random doesn't mean magical. It means that sometimes genes mutate and that there is no pattern to the mutations. A pattern is only found when the mutated genes are naturally selected for the survival of a species. For example, mental retardation is caused by a random genetic mutation, but it is not naturally selected for obvious reasons.

@hue-man,

hue-man;100641 wrote:

Spontaneous and random doesn't mean magical. It means that sometimes genes mutate and that there is no pattern to the mutations. A pattern is only found when the mutated genes are naturally selected for the survival of a species. For example, mental retardation is caused by a random genetic mutation, but it is not naturally selected for obvious reasons.

linear thinking...what you mean is that a pattern is to complex to be perceived as such, or that there might be to many variables to look for one...
No such thing as random if we give it a thought...random means no cause, and that is impossible for entities once they interact between themselves...when I start to grow cryptonite crystals in my back, I?ll give you random as a fair explanation...:sarcastic: (even if they won?t make it trough natural selection...)

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100650 wrote:

linear thinking...what you mean is that a pattern is to complex to be perceived as such, or that there might be to many variables to look for one...
No such thing as random if we give it a thought...random means no cause, and that is impossible for entities once they interact between themselves...when I start to grow cryptonite crystals in my back, I?ll give you random as a fair explanation...:sarcastic: (even if they won?t make it trough natural selection...)

Here is a dictionary definition of random:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

There is no pattern in the mutations, which is why most of the mutations are not useful for natural selection, and why 99.9% of the species that have walked on this planet have become extinct because they couldn't adapt. Saying that there is a pattern in the mutations that I can't detect is equivalent to saying that there's a ghost in front of me but I can't see it. That is not a valid argument. The only pattern to be seen is in the pattern of natural selection. If you're claiming that there's a pattern in most of the useless, and sometimes detrimental mutations then prove it.

@hue-man,

hue-man;100655 wrote:

Here is a dictionary definition of random:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

There is no pattern in the mutations, which is why most of the mutations are not useful for natural selection, and why 99.9% of the species that have walked on this planet have become extinct because they couldn't adapt. Saying that there is a pattern in the mutations that I can't detect is equivalent to saying that there's a ghost in front of me but I can't see it. That is not a valid argument. The only pattern to be seen is in the pattern of natural selection. If you're claiming that there's a pattern in most of the useless, and sometimes detrimental mutations then prove it.

...agree I can?t prove it easily...but I also would like you to prove me that something as no specific purpose if the very same thing is specific...at best you can say that it as no purpose in the context of what we ask, or how we ask, still is different from random...

...random is a to broad concept...it does n?t mean anything !

Gene mutation definitely seeks diversity, witch is why as a so broad scale of possibilities, but not all... so it is not random ! In order to be random you would need a perfect balance between all possibilities, and there is no such thing...

...so, I can conclude that a mutation as a specific cause, and that its purpose to become, is easily variable through interference of other "gravitational" variables around it...a very different idea, and far from random nonsense...

...still, there is a thing that I can admit, and that is that, indeed, there are things that seam done to give the impression of free development...(nature is clever)

@hue-man,

The above posts on natural selection are off the topic. I would like to ask readers to stay on the topic and refrain from steering off into no man's land. So to get things back on track, I'm posting something back in line with the thread that is more to the point, and also, of some fundamental importance. This is mainly for the benefit of those who have the impression that the argument is offering something new to the field of philosophy. For those who think otherwise, I believe there is nothing that can be said, except for the following:

hue-man;100547 wrote:

[QUOTE] 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 mere similarity in titles do not make the two arguments the same.

This is an all too easy criticism, and it is entirely bogus.

Readers of this argument should not be fooled by a mere similarity in titles.

To refute the above unjustifable criticism all I need do is ask the question: "Where in the whole of philosophy is there a philosophical argument that necessitates, a priori, an expanding universe?"

[Never mind the question as to where in the whole of philosophy is there an extended synthetic cognition a priori that falls in line with Kant's critical demands for a science of metaphysics? ... even though this is in actuality, the crux of the whole matter.]

The empirical evidence of redshifts for distant galaxies, recorded by both Slypher, and more extensively by Hubble, provided the empirical evidence showing that the universe was expanding.

Einstein's own theory told him the universe had to be expanding, but the idea was unpalpable to him and he added a cosmological constant to his equations to force the universe (according to his theory), to behave as if it were a steady state. He is now known for not having made the prediction that the universe was expanding, even though his theory told him it had to be expanding. It is generally understood that he would have been the first to make such a prediction, had he only put complete trust in his theory; and this leads to the conclusion that no such prediction was ever before made by anyone (including Einstein, who should have made it).

Also, the Causal Argument necessitates not only that the universe be expanding, but it necessitates that a singularity preceded the beginning of this expansion.

"Where again, in the whole of philosophy is there another theory that necessitates, a priori, a singularity preceding the expansion of the universe?"

I could add further questions, but these two are more than sufficient to make my point.

To state the Causal Argument is just a rehash of an ages old argument is unjustifiable --unless there exists somewhere a philosophical system that necessitates, a priori, both an expanding universe, and a singularity preceding the beginning of this expansion.

Readers of the Causal Argument should be aware of this crucial distinction, for it separates the Causal Argument from all other arguments, past and present. There is in fact, no justifiable comparison, and the attempt to put forth a comparison is deliberately misleading.

Now, if by some chance I should be mistaken, and if it could be shown that there is indeed a philosopher with a philosophical system that necessitates, a priori, both an expanding universe and a singularity preceding this expansion, then I will take back this refutation of what I have judged an unjustifiable criticism. In this unimaginable and entirely impossible instance, I have but two demands that must be met by those who hold to the criticism:

1. Name the philosopher, and:

2. Name the work by this philosopher wherein it is necessitated, a priori, that the universe be expanding, and that a singularity preceded this expansion.

If there is no clear evidence of a system of philosophy that necessitates, a priori, an expanding universe, and a singularity preceding expansion, then I will accept this, as all readers of the Causal Argument should, as incontrovertible evidence that overturns the unjustifiable criticism that has been made.

Silence on the part of those parties (there are more than one) who have provided the unwarranted ciriticism will be taken as an admission of defeat on this point.

Evading the above demand, or an attempt to cloud the issue by steering off the topic, will only result in a further demonstration, on the part of the critic failing to meet this demand, that they have not truly grasped the argument, despite the dubious claim that they are able to comprehend the argument.

I must retain my skepticism here, for I cannot see how the unjustifiable criticism could have been made by anyone who has truly grasped the argument.

It is not that easy to understand. It takes considerable time and considerable effort. A simple reading, all too easily, can lead to criticisms with absolutely no merit. For those who see something new in the argument, keep on it until you've grasped it, and you will see where the argument is not like any other argument ever before offered.

Do not be fooled by those who attempt to mislead by claiming that the Causal Argument offers nothing new.[/SIZE]

@Shostakovich phil,

Well what I think is that you did n?t grasp the point upon Determinism, and the importance of it to the discussion...

Who does n?t know or heard about the red shift effect when you look into distant galaxies ? That?s not the issue upon expansion...

Determinism is fundamental if you want to hold into the idea that Past, Present and Future all exist simultaneously...and therefore that the expansion that you indeed can see is not real, but a simulated effect through "Time"/Space...now, the point is that free will and random events would n?t allow an already build future conceptualization...

My strong conviction who first lead into this conclusion arises from two main principles witch are hard to refute logically :

1-The Absolute cannot grow. So it must/has to be stable...
2-An expansion towards nowhere is inconceivable...

so:

1-Movement must not exist.
2-Time/Space are an Illusion.

Given the empirical data how can we conciliate ?

Determinism is the answer accordingly with a different interpretation of Time/Space and movement phenomena...

...we can have the singularity and also the expansion, and everything else if we throw another light in to it...

Absolute, Holistic Determinism is the key !

All things already are, Past, Present and Future, coexist !

...Through a "movement" effect, a "Time/Space" effect, as I call it, brings up coordinates, or axis of Order, of the Absolute itself, separated into entities, parts, this create the illusion of shifting, or fazing in and out, in Space/Time packets, that already are/exist with this things "history" in it...

So if we could look from an outside perspective we would indeed perceive how everything is Frozen and standing still...but we can?t...

...Mind works with Time, and Logic to...a priori reality hardly can be understood trough this...

The important thing is that Einstein was right all along, God does n?t play with dice, and the Universe, is Constant...it does not grow or shrink !

Nonsense is to think and sustain that the Universe is growing towards nothingness, building upon itself, by work of magic..now, I wonder every day, how can one go with that idea ???

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100743 wrote:

Quote:
Well what I think is that you did n?t grasp the point upon Determinism, and the importance of it to the discussion...

This may be so.

Quote:

Determinism is fundamental if you want to hold into the idea that Past, Present and Future all exist simultaneously...and therefore that the expansion that you indeed can see is not real, but a simulated effect through "Time"/Space...now, the point is that free will and random events would n?t allow an already build future conceptualization...

My strong conviction who first lead into this conclusion arises from two main principles witch are hard to refute logically :

1-The Absolute cannot grow. So it must/has to be stable...
2-An expansion towards nowhere is inconceivable...

so:

1-Movement must not exist.
2-Time/Space are an Illusion.

Given the empirical data how can we conciliate ?

Determinism is the answer accordingly with a different interpretation of Time/Space and movement phenomena...

...we can have the singularity and also the expansion, and everything else if we throw another light in to it...

Absolute, Holistic Determinism is the key !

All things already are, Past, Present and Future, coexist !

...Through a "movement" effect, a "Time/Space" effect, as I call it, brings up coordinates, or axis of Order, of the Absolute itself, separated into entities, parts, this create the illusion of shifting, or fazing in and out, in Space/Time packets, that already are/exist with this things "history" in it...

So if we could look from an outside perspective we would indeed perceive how everything is Frozen and standing still...but we can?t...

...Mind works with Time, and Logic to...a priori reality hardly can be understood trough this...

Perhaps this can all be implied by the Causal Argument, which allows for an Absolute Mind in which the past, present, and future, can be held as though they were still. But there is a fluid motion through this stillness by the actions we take, and the changes we experience, which would also be known by that which is Absolute.

To see all things, including the expansion of spacetime, for what they truly are (which you're of course right in saying we can't), rather than from our relative perspectives, we would have to have the Mind of an Absolute Being capable of seeing the whole ... capable of seeing all things as they exist in themselves and in relation to all else that exists ... the particular in relation to the universal and the universal in relation to the particular. In so far as we are finite beings with limited capacities, such a realization of the whole remains impossible to us; so we use logic, look at what we see, and we can order our perceptions into a kind of mental schematic by putting the pieces of the puzzle together; and I think we can do a pretty good job of forming a mental schematic that does some justice to Reality; even though we will always be looking through a fog at an Ultimate Reality that can only exist in the Mind of an Absolute Being.

The Causal Argument gives me the most organized, sensible, rational, logical, and intuitively correct picture I can think of to explain the world in which I exist. Were I to dismiss it, or, were I to revert back to the days before I understood the first step that I took in forumulating it, I would in effect, be scrambling the pieces of the puzzle, which I would then have to put back again into the same order.

The reality we experience may indeed amount to an illusion. But if it does amount to this, are the tragedies we experience in life, also an illusion?

The ramifications lead to a nonsensical view of the universe.

I look at the universe as having sense and order, and purpose (contrary to the nonpurpose view of those who dismiss the existence of a Supreme Being as mere superstition). The world I see holds no contradictions that cannot be answered, or be viewed by me as being incompatible with my belief in the existence of such a Being.

@Shostakovich phil,

The point is that I agree with the Causal Argument as long it takes B and X in it...

Think...A must not, in any circumstances be exceeded ! just that !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;100751 wrote:

The point is that I agree with the Causal Argument as long it takes B and X in it...

Think...A must not, in any circumstances be exceeded ! just that !

I won't get into the theological implications of the argument, but you've pointed out in this something fundamental to the second work that I have in mind, and that follows up by proposing answers to further questions that can't be addressed in the framework of the CA. The argument from evil being the most central of these questions.

According to the argument, A is not exceeded, nor can it be. B is contained within A, and so is the derivative =X, of B, in its movement to A.

There is though a pure relation of B to A, in that B emerges through the series as a pure, dynamic force of mind, intensified to its greatest possible degree, and as an indivisible, immaterial and pure force, it therein bears a pure relation to the infinite and unconditional Absolute state in which it is contained.

@Shostakovich phil,

Many certainties are concluded from this argument and it is just like all the rest, determined by views rather than what we don't know. All observation have been questioned and re questioned, if we could be secure in our conclusions we could be more certain in our theories.

I get bored with asking the same questions , why can we not accept that nothing does not exist and realise we only have ever had something. We measure, or we try to, the amount of time this universe has existed and then conclude what was prior to this universe was nothing or something else, WHY?

We might just be missing a certain something from these preconceived ideas, we must dismiss all these notions and determine by what we do know, not what we assume. Use other philosophers for reference by all means but remember they might just have fallen into the same trap we can so easily fall.

@xris,

xris;100786 wrote:

Many certainties are concluded from this argument and it is just like all the rest, determined by views rather than what we don't know. All observation have been questioned and re questioned, if we could be secure in our conclusions we could be more certain in our theories.

I get bored with asking the same questions , why can we not accept that nothing does not exist and realise we only have ever had something. We measure, or we try to, the amount of time this universe has existed and then conclude what was prior to this universe was nothing or something else, WHY?

We might just be missing a certain something from these preconceived ideas, we must dismiss all these notions and determine by what we do know, not what we assume. Use other philosophers for reference by all means but remember they might just have fallen into the same trap we can so easily fall.

XRIS my proposal agrees with your perspective !
...there was no before or after the Absolute...and there?s nothing beyond it. There?s just it !

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;100759 wrote:

I won't get into the theological implications of the argument, but you've pointed out in this something fundamental to the second work that I have in mind, and that follows up by proposing answers to further questions that can't be addressed in the framework of the CA. The argument from evil being the most central of these questions.

According to the argument, A is not exceeded, nor can it be. B is contained within A, and so is the derivative =X, of B, in its movement to A.

There is though a pure relation of B to A, in that B emerges through the series as a pure, dynamic force of mind, intensified to its greatest possible degree, and as an indivisible, immaterial and pure force, it therein bears a pure relation to the infinite and unconditional Absolute state in which it is contained.

i have difficulty in applying labels to ideas, such as whether or not they are deterministic and i also wonder if it is worthwhile to try and decide what is an illusion and what is real when these are all only concepts and words and definitions of conditions that are really beyond our ability to comprehend in their fullness of reality.

so now i am thinking that A (mind) encompasses everything, B is the force that causes it to have thoughts and X are the manifestations of those thoughts as portrayed within the limits of space/time and mass...? since A is infinite, B and X can expand infinitely within it, ultimately folding or turning back in towards itself when it loses force and entropy takes over.

am i getting anywhere?

Philosophy Forum

Causal Argument, Introduction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know