A Short Counterargument to "First Cause" Apologetics

[MrFrankZito]

I've been told this is reminiscent of Kant....


P1: If “A” is to be the cause of “B,” then “A” must preexist “B.” That is, a cause must preexist its effect.

P2: If a creature exists outside of space and time, that creature cannot be said to preexist anything, because the very notion of one thing preexisting another thing implies both are subject to time.

C1: A creature existing outside of space and time cannot be the cause of anything, because it cannot be said to preexist anything.

P3: Christians believe god exists outside of space and time.

P4: A creature existing outside of space and time cannot be the cause of anything, because it cannot be said to preexist anything.


C2: The Christian god cannot be the cause of anything.

[rocketdodger]

No, because God is not subject to the logical constraint that something outside of space and time cannot prexist anything.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

P1: If “A” is to be the cause of “B,” then “A” must preexist “B.” That is, a cause must preexist its effect.

Experiments in quantum mechanics dispute this. i.e. the way a particle/wave is detected after going through slits seems to determine how it goes through the slits. There are many other QM examples along these lines.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

I've been told this is reminiscent of Kant....


P1: If “A” is to be the cause of “B,” then “A” must preexist “B.” That is, a cause must preexist its effect.

P2: If a creature exists outside of space and time, that creature cannot be said to preexist anything, because the very notion of one thing preexisting another thing implies both are subject to time.

C1: A creature existing outside of space and time cannot be the cause of anything, because it cannot be said to preexist anything.

P3: Christians believe god exists outside of space and time.

P4: A creature existing outside of space and time cannot be the cause of anything, because it cannot be said to preexist anything.


C2: The Christian god cannot be the cause of anything.

Why are logical arguments required when, in general, a convincing body of observational evidence necessitating a new theory has yet to be established?

[MrFrankZito]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

No, because God is not subject to the logical constraint that something outside of space and time cannot preexist anything.

Is god subject to the logical constraint that a square cannot be circular?

[MrFrankZito]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

Experiments in quantum mechanics dispute this. i.e. the way a particle/wave is detected after going through slits seems to determine how it goes through the slits. There are many other QM examples along these lines.

Would you at least concede that "cause" and "effect" must have a temporal relationship? If so, time is still crucial and indispensable.

[Beerina]

You presume one time axis. There could, in theory, be others. Traveling along them, our universe's entire history would appear as one multi-billion year long "3D" movie strip. Or maybe not, as they might only be able to return to the current "now" of this universe before shifting forward or back along our time axis.

In any case, for "god" to do anything, he would have to exist along at least one time axis. This also presumes "god" does things, per se, rather than just being a static structure strewn along one or more time and space axis. While that doesn't seem like the traditional notion of "God" (note the cap), some philosophers have argued that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibelevolent creature would have only one proper course of action at every single point in history, and hence wouldn't even need to think, and hence wouldn't even need to exist as a conscious being.

All this, of course, ignores the concepts from relativity where time and space are inextricably intertwined. Move through space, and your speed through the time axis slows, as your total speed through the spacetime continuum is the constant speed of light, though IANAP, so this gumball machine description may be hokey.

[tsg]

You're choosing a particular definition of the word "cause" that is really only applicable in a system where "time" has meaning and applying it to a system where it doesn't. Your argument can be summed up as follows: "outside time, nothing can be the cause of anything because nothing can pre-exist anything." In other words, "cause" as we perceive it is meaningless outside this plane of perception.

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

Is god subject to the logical constraint that a square cannot be circular?

A square can indeed be circular if the square is a two dimensional projection of a cylinder. From one perspective, it appears to be square. From another perspective it appears to be circular. You're argument depends on "cause" to be viewed from a single perspective when, in fact, there may be more than one.

In short, insisting that the cause come before the effect where time does not exist is like insisting that it must be located north of the north pole.

[HappyCat]

It is not clear that something which is not subject to the laws of time can not cause something which is subject to the laws of time. Thus, I do not feel P1/P2/C1 combination logically follows. To me, it makes more sense to say that something which is not subject to time can preexist anything, because presumably it is not restricted to the same forward movement of time as we are.
I think there is two much simpler counter-arguments to the "first cause" argument. 1. It is not clear that a first cause can exist because the first cause must have had a cause. 2. A universe of finite time does not eliminate the possibility of an infinite regression of causes: i.e. what if each effect were caused by something 1/2 the age of the universe ago. Each effect existing now at t=1 was caused by something at t=.5, which were caused by something at t=.25, which were caused at t=.125...., thus simply because each effect has a cause does not imply that there was a first cause, since for every effect in an infinite causal chain there exists an effect before it.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

Is god subject to the logical constraint that a square cannot be circular?

Yes.

There are different types of constraints.

Those that constrain knowledge because contradictions arise if they are broken must always be followed.

Those that constrain knowledge because we do not understand the implications of them being broken do not need to be followed by beings that do understand those implications.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

Would you at least concede that "cause" and "effect" must have a temporal relationship? If so, time is still crucial and indispensable.

Not necessarily. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It doesn't seem to be the case in QM.

[MrFrankZito]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

Not necessarily. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It doesn't seem to be the case in QM.

However, even if, in quantum mechanics, there are a certain number of effects that precede their causes, "cause" and "effect" still have a temporal relationship--it merely is an inverted one. There is no instance to which you have referred where "cause" is temporally divorced from "effect." [In such a case, cause does not precede effect, effect does not precede cause and they are not simultaneous.]

That is, either causes might precede effects or, as in QM, effects might precede causes (or they might be temporally simultaneous). They are still temporally related, though.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by MrFrankZito

However, even if, in quantum mechanics, there are a certain number of effects that precede their causes, "cause" and "effect" still have a temporal relationship--it merely is an inverted one.

So some causes come before, and some come after. That doesn't necessarily imply a relationship.

95% of murderers eat bread 24 hrs or less before they kill. 5% do not. What is the relationship between bread and murders?

[MrFrankZito]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

So some causes come before, and some come after. That doesn't necessarily imply a relationship.

95% of murderers eat bread 24 hrs or less before they kill. 5% do not. What is the relationship between bread and murders?

All causes have a temporal relationship with their respective effects. That is, causes, by necessity, either come before, after or simultaneous to their respective effects. If god exists outside of space and time, god cannot be said to come "before," "after" or "simultaneous to" anything, because such a statement would be incoherent.

If causes and effects have a temporal relationship, god cannot cause anything.

[DrBaltar]

Here's the deal. Something that most people do not grapple with is the likelihood that time is merely an illusion. The universe has at least 5 dimensions (probably more). What this is, is a multidimensional, unmoving structure, in which one of the dimensions is time. Time is an imaginary dimension, in the sense that sqrt(-1) is an imaginary number. Skipping a lot of steps that do actually exist, it can be shown that the result is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that as a whole, entropy increases, and the universe becomes more unordered in the direction of the time axis. Because of this, the chemical reactions that store memories in our brains can only do so along the time axis. We can only remember events in one direction: The positive direction along the time axis. This all gives the illusion of time flowing. In relativity, actions are physically correct and energy is conserved whether moving forward or backwards in time. The equations in quantum mechanics do not have a time variable.

While your effort to logically disprove god is a noble one, you're barking up the wrong tree. Many philosophers tried sitting around trying to logically prove whether or not they existed or not. The correct method to find the truth is via the scientific method, which means experimentation. This is the method that has proven itself over the years. Plato's & Pythagoras's 'logic' led to 2000 years of stagnation including the Dark Ages.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

Here's the deal. Something that most people do not grapple with is the likelihood that time is merely an illusion. The universe has at least 5 dimensions (probably more). What this is, is a multidimensional, unmoving structure, in which one of the dimensions is time. Time is an imaginary dimension, in the sense that sqrt(-1) is an imaginary number. Skipping a lot of steps that do actually exist, it can be shown that the result is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that as a whole, entropy increases, and the universe becomes more unordered in the direction of the time axis. Because of this, the chemical reactions that store memories in our brains can only do so along the time axis. We can only remember events in one direction: The positive direction along the time axis. This all gives the illusion of time flowing. In relativity, actions are physically correct and energy is conserved whether moving forward or backwards in time. The equations in quantum mechanics do not have a time variable.

Wow, interesting stuff.
Not sure whether I agree.. but then I'm not sure I understand it well enough to formulate any opinion.
Anyway, DrBaltar, I hope you keep posting.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

Here's the deal. Something that most people do not grapple with is the likelihood that time is merely an illusion. The universe has at least 5 dimensions (probably more). What this is, is a multidimensional, unmoving structure, in which one of the dimensions is time. Time is an imaginary dimension, in the sense that sqrt(-1) is an imaginary number. Skipping a lot of steps that do actually exist, it can be shown that the result is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that as a whole, entropy increases, and the universe becomes more unordered in the direction of the time axis. Because of this, the chemical reactions that store memories in our brains can only do so along the time axis.

This suggests the whole unmoving structure came into being in one fell swoop (whatever that means). Which in turn fails to explain how, say, a ball rolling across a floor behaves, "frame after frame", so to speak, as if it were moving in time according to the rules of physics. It's the difference between a stream and a painting of a stream. The bubbles and gurgles downstream in a real stream are due to the upstream activities, while the downstream ones in the painting are due to someone painting it that way to look that way. It just looks like those bubbles are due to upstream activity, when they are not. This situation looks similar. How would it get that way in the static structure? While I can conceive of the entire thing being a static structure from a different time axis, I have a tough time imagining how balls bouncing around a pool table could be more parsimonously accomplished that way than with actual real-world physical activity. Without true time, how would time "lay things out" in such a progressive manner?

[triadboy]

Originally Posted by DrBaltar

Experiments in quantum mechanics dispute this. i.e. the way a particle/wave is detected after going through slits seems to determine how it goes through the slits. There are many other QM examples along these lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Quote:

Feynman was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment.

When I heard about this experiment in Physics class, it blew my mind (in the true 1960s definition of the phrase) I still can't get my head around it. Mind boggling!

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This suggests the whole unmoving structure came into being in one fell swoop (whatever that means). Which in turn fails to explain how, say, a ball rolling across a floor behaves, "frame after frame", so to speak, as if it were moving in time according to the rules of physics. It's the difference between a stream and a painting of a stream. The bubbles and gurgles downstream in a real stream are due to the upstream activities, while the downstream ones in the painting are due to someone painting it that way to look that way. It just looks like those bubbles are due to upstream activity, when they are not. This situation looks similar. How would it get that way in the static structure? While I can conceive of the entire thing being a static structure from a different time axis, I have a tough time imagining how balls bouncing around a pool table could be more parsimonously accomplished that way than with actual real-world physical activity. Without true time, how would time "lay things out" in such a progressive manner?

A very simplistic model, but it might help explain what (I think, anyway) DrBaltar is getting at: imagine a universe where there are only three dimensions whose beings perceive what we call "height" as time. These beings would perceive themselves moving through 2 dimensions in any direction they like and only moving in the third in one direction at a constant rate. Take a cylinder. The first instance in time is perceived as the cross section of this cylinder (a circle) at its base. The next instance is at a point slightly higher than that, and so on. So far we just have a circle sitting in one place. Now, tilt that cylinder in one direction or another and see what happens. As time in this universe progresses, the circle appears to move in the direction of the tilt. The more severe the tilt, the faster it moves. Now, if we turn our cylinder into something more like a slinky that can bend in any number of directions (as long as it always heads upward), we can make a circle that moves around anywhere we want it to. We can even have several circles swirling around each other and never occupied the same place at the same time because the slinkies could never occupy the same x,y space at the same height even though a segment of one slinky could occupy the space directly above a segment of another, giving the perception that the circles were in the same place but at different times.

Now, to address the physics question, give these slinkies the ability to move themselves, but only at the point in time (their time, that is) that they perceive as "now" and it gets more interesting. Where the circle of "now" is located is constrained by where it was previously, or lower down, and where it will be in the future (higher up) is shifted. (Imagine pushing a deck of cards in the middle somewhere so that it leans. You can only push it so far before the cards on top are no longer supported by the cards on the bottom and it falls over. That is what I mean by each instance being constrained by the position of the instance before.) If a slinky moves so that it collides with another slinky, the two slinkies will react as physics predicts they will, even if that collision happens well above the "now" circle. It just won't be perceived to happen until it is time to, where, in our universe, it happens at a different time because we perceive "time" along a different axis.

Hopefully that makes it a little clearer. Unless, of course, I have DrBaltar's premise completely wrong, in which case, forget I said anything

[Beerina]

Yes, but that's what I'm getting at, too. The "constraint" along the z (aka pseudo-time) axis is exactly the "physics" frame-by-frame interaction I'm talking about. Constraint presumes time exists as a real phenomena. Proposing time is an "illusion" overlaying a "crawl" through an actually static multidimensional world negates this constraining interacting physics.

I hit a ping pong ball with a paddle and it goes flying off. If this were one solid spacetime mass (I use the frame-by-frame analogy of a film strip to describe the situation intuitively even though I know it would very well be continuous rather than discrete) then how and why would such an event exist embedded in it? In other words, and again this is a stretched analogy, what lays down the rules and calculates the next frame, so to speak, such that a time illusion overlay "works"? That's the puzzle I don't get. It seems to violate Occam's Razor in proposing a bunch of extra stuff needlessly, the needlessness in this case bound up in the "constraint/frame-by-frame" aspect of the illusion of particles bouncing around thru time.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This suggests the whole unmoving structure came into being in one fell swoop (whatever that means).

How the static structure of the universe came into being, I have no idea. Just as I would have no idea how a universe could come from nothing in a universe where time is flowing. Somehow it happened, and hopefully we can find some clue as to how.

Originally Posted by Beerina

Which in turn fails to explain how, say, a ball rolling across a floor behaves, "frame after frame", so to speak, as if it were moving in time according to the rules of physics. It's the difference between a stream and a painting of a stream. The bubbles and gurgles downstream in a real stream are due to the upstream activities, while the downstream ones in the painting are due to someone painting it that way to look that way. It just looks like those bubbles are due to upstream activity, when they are not. This situation looks similar. How would it get that way in the static structure? While I can conceive of the entire thing being a static structure from a different time axis, I have a tough time imagining how balls bouncing around a pool table could be more parsimonously accomplished that way than with actual real-world physical activity. Without true time, how would time "lay things out" in such a progressive manner?

The axis of time is not like the 3 spatial axis. The metric of flat spacetime is:


So it's 'signature' is (-,+,+,+). The '-' sign says that time's axis is imaginary. Not imaginary as in a figment of imagination, but like sqrt(-1) is imaginary. This has implications in how matter and energy behaves and how conservation of energy works. Conservation of energy constrains all motion into the normal physics we're used to. But it's all a consequence of the time axis being an 'imaginary' axis.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by tsg

Hopefully that makes it a little clearer. Unless, of course, I have DrBaltar's premise completely wrong, in which case, forget I said anything

Yes, that's basically it.

[DrBaltar]

Originally Posted by Beerina

That's the puzzle I don't get. It seems to violate Occam's Razor in proposing a bunch of extra stuff needlessly, the needlessness in this case bound up in the "constraint/frame-by-frame" aspect of the illusion of particles bouncing around thru time.

In addition to my previous post to you, I would like to add some comments about General Relativity. I don't know how familiar you are with the theory, but the coordinate system or arena that mass and energy are in is a 'spacetime'. It's not space and time, it's one thing called spacetime. When we look further away we are looking into the past, so we are actually seeing through spacetime - not just space. When GR describes the gravity well around a star, it's curved spacetime. This is not just an analogy, it is literally curved spacetime. It's that fact that explains how gravity works and how light propagates. If there is a thing that we are in called spacetime, then time is a part of it, and spacetime must therefore be a static unmoving structure.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

No, because God is not subject to the logical constraint that something outside of space and time cannot prexist anything.

That's partly because that "logical constraint" doesn't exist. We don't even need to invoke God to observe that the space and time of a novel does not encompass the physical novelist.

For example, given that Ivanhoe lived in the 12th century, how is is possible that his creator (Scott) lived in the 18th?

How could Zorro have lived in the 17th century when his creator wrote about him in the 20th?

Did Bilbo find the Ring before or after Tolkien married Edith?

Similarly, stories can be told out of order :

Did Darth Vader cut off Luke's hand first, or did Count Dooku cut off Vader's?

For that matter, films are often shot "out of order"; Aragorn was running across the fields of Rohan with an injured foot that didn't happen for another two day. Of course, what "really" happened is that the actor (Morgenstern) broke his foot kicking a prop helmet when the pyre scene at the edges of Fanghorn was shot, and they had to tape it up for the shooting of the race-across-Rohan scenes that were later in the shooting schedule.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

No, because God is not subject to the logical constraint that something outside of space and time cannot prexist anything.

That's partly because that "logical constraint" doesn't exist. We don't even need to invoke God to observe that the space and time of a novel does not encompass the physical novelist.

For example, given that Ivanhoe lived in the 12th century, how is is possible that his creator (Scott) lived in the 18th?

How could Zorro have lived in the 17th century when his creator wrote about him in the 20th?

Did Bilbo find the Ring before or after Tolkien married Edith?

Similarly, stories can be told out of order :

Did Darth Vader cut off Luke's hand first, or did Count Dooku cut off Vader's?

For that matter, films are often shot "out of order"; Aragorn was running across the fields of Rohan with an injured foot that didn't happen for another two day. Of course, what "really" happened is that the actor (Morgenstern) broke his foot kicking a prop helmet when the pyre scene at the edges of Fanghorn was shot, and they had to tape it up for the shooting of the race-across-Rohan scenes that were later in the shooting schedule.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by drkitten

That's partly because that "logical constraint" doesn't exist.

Well thats why I distinguished it from "real" constraints, I.E. those that are in place to prevent contradictions.

Anyway you know I am not religious, I just threw in that line playing the devil's advocate.