Consolidated Refutation of the First Cause Argument

[Socrastein]

A friend of mine on philosophyforums wrote this thread a long time ago. I wanted to write a similiar refutation of the first cause on MAP, but I figured that rather than waste my time and risk losing the efficacy that could be had by quoting Spam instead, I decided that rather than just rephrase everything he said, I might as well just paste his post with due credit. And it follows thusly:

Originally Posted by Spamspamspamandham

All around us we observe the causality. We observe the creation and destruction of things. We observe that every time something is created or destroyed, there is a cause, without exception. It is natural then to extend that and infer that everything we see must have a cause in order to have been created.

I would like to demonstrate that this inference is not valid, and point out the logical fallacies.

Fallacy 1: Categorical Error
We do not in fact ever witness the creation or destruction of anything. What we witness is the reorganization of that which already existed. It has been proven beyond a doubt that the total quantity of existence is constant (conservation laws of physics). It is not a valid inference to suggest that the substance we witness as being constant is actually a reorganized form of something else as well that required a cause to be formed.

Fallacy 2: Contradictory Premises
We know from relativity theory, that time is not a constant, but is relative to an observer. From this, we know that time is a part of the universe iteself and does not transcend it. Causality is the transfer of energy/information from something to something else. For causality to operate, time must exist. If it did not, then there would simply be an eternal frozen state, and no energy/information transfer could take place. For causality to operate, there must be energy/matter. Without these, there would be no source or destination for information exchange. For causality to operate, there must be space. Without space there could be neither time nor energy. So, all the fundamental aspects of the universe must already exist in order for the universe to be created. There must be a time before time in which the universe was created. There must be space outside of space in which it was created. There must be energy without energy that caused it. No fewer than 3 contradictory premises are involved!

Fallacy 3: Special Pleading
If you manage to ignore the prior fallacies you are still stuck with one more. If it is valid to infer the universe must be caused, then it is valid to infer that the cause of that cause must be caused. At this point, special pleading is invoked to avoid an infinite regression of causes. There is no justification whatsoever for the claim that the first cause is not also caused. The claim is made because otherwise the fallacy becomes too clear.

Summary
The concept of a first cause is flawed on several levels and results in multiple paradoxes. A paradox is a cue to the reasonable person that the premises are flawed. These paradoxes vanish simply by changing the assumption to, "Existence is not an effect and thus does not require a cause.".

Anyone who has any thoughts or refutation of these refutations, feel free to post them. I can confidently address them even though I pasted this argument, because I only did so for the sake of time and ease, not because I was incapable of such a discourse.

[medi]

There must be a time before time in which the universe was created. There must be space outside of space in which it was created. There must be energy without energy that caused it. No fewer than 3 contradictory premises are involved!

Not if space is a finite space with no boundary. i.e. keep going in one direction, and you end up back where you started. Like a man on the surface of a giant balloon.

Ditto time, although that hasn't been proved. Since current thinking is that time is just another dimension like length or depth, I suspect time will follow the same pattern, the start of the universe is also it's end.

[AZeitung]

Actually, medi, that possibility can be ruled out by entropic boundary conditions, although the geometry would otherwise be allowed by GR.

[Talyn]

Very intriguiging... This will provoke much thought...

[Mark_Campbell]

lol it looks like snake is pondering thomas aquinas

[Socrastein]

Medi, the segment you quoted is incorrect, you needn't refute it. That's why at the end of it Spam points out that it is contradictory in at least 3 ways. I got the impression you thought he was actually supporting those claims, but really he was only bringing to light their inherent fallibility.

[BendzR]

Hey guys, been inactive for a while.

Socrastein, your contribution to the forums puts a smile on my face

This concept that existance doesnt require a cause has been confusing me since I was very young when I didn't know how to word the paradox's but still understood the logic

[Socrastein]

Originally Posted by BendzR

Socrastein, your contribution to the forums puts a smile on my face

Ah my friend, I assure you that your kind and undeserved words put a far greater smile on mine

[cloudz]

I agree with that view of things..

It begs the question, what came before the big bang?
Within the universe we still follow cause and effect right?
We still need to know the causes of the bang (what came before), we can see the effect.
That leaves an ongoing cycle of cause-effect-cause-effect etc... The great wheel of life.

If we assume that over great lengths of time, highly intelligent/enlightened beings evolve.

Is it possible that when faced with a dying (hypothetically) universe, highly intelligent/organised universal conciousness finds a way to give birth to a new one... ad infinatum.

Or it just take a natural course of birth, growth, stagnation, collapse/entropy/reorganisation and then explodes into life once more ...ad infinatum.

...and there could be loads of 'em.

Can we see all before us as just a constant organisation, reorganisation/mutation of various forms of energy/matter? - including the energy of conciousness?

[Socrastein]

GEO perhaps you missed this part:

Originally Posted by Spam

The concept of a first cause is flawed on several levels and results in multiple paradoxes. A paradox is a cue to the reasonable person that the premises are flawed. These paradoxes vanish simply by changing the assumption to, "Existence is not an effect and thus does not require a cause.".

[cloudz]

Are you saying that you don't beleive in the big bang theory?

I wasn't trying to say that the big bang is the first cause.

I was agreeing that the materials and catalyst are something that occur/reccur as constant not that they come about from nothing.

However within that (ongoing universe) the transformations that take place must still adhere to cause and effect.

Perhaps you missed that

[Socrastein]

So are you saying that the universe could be eternal, and infinite regress of cause effect? If so then yes, I did miss that, and I'm sorry to have done so.

I must admit, I couldn't quite grasp what you were saying in your post, it felt like communicating with Yoda mixed with a teenager tripping on acid. Or maybe I was tripping... who knows. Cool avatar though That guy sure has big balls in his hands.

[cloudz]

That's cool

I'll be the first to admit that my thought processes can be a little erratic sometimes

[Socrastein]

Mine as well, but I'm still curious if you meant that the universe could be an eternal, infinite chain of cause/effect. Erratic or no, I'd still like to understand what you were saying

[cloudz]

Yep basically that is what I was trying to say. It could be.

That makes a little more sense to me than

"Existence is not an effect and thus does not require a cause"

while I agree with the statement, I do see it as insufficient.

Then it turns into the chicken and the egg.

What came first the chicken and the egg. Of course there is no answer, as you cant have one without the other. The 'paradox' principle (as I like to call it) is that they co-exist eternally in one form or another in principle - this principle can be applied to many things. You can't have one without the other. They exist in eachother simultaneously. Like cause and effect, they cannot be seperated.

So it may be truer to say that existance is an effect of existance