Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Argument for the existence of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't think it makes a difference whether we speak in terms of time or cause-and-effect. I deny that there must have been a first cause, or an uncaused cause, or anything like that. The first thing to say about this in response to your argument is that I (unlike other people on this forum) believe there is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that there is an actual infinity of something. So right off the bat, I'm not satisfied with your argument. The second point is that, even if you accept what Ayn Rand said regarding infinity, this seems to only apply to an infinity of actually existing entities. A cause is not an actual, independent entity. Look back to my example of the ball breaking the glass. In counting the number of entities that exist at any one time in the scenario, there is only a ball and glass; not a ball, glass, a cause, and an effect. Cause and effect is a relationship between actual entities and not an entity itself. So even given the premises that Ayn Rand held, there is no reason to think that there have been finitely many causes.

I'm sorry for the confusion. Your position is much clearer to me now. I understood your emphasis about effects not being entities but I did not realize that you were using it in the context of Rand's contention about the impossibility of an infinity of entities. While I don't think I agree with you, I understand your emphasis. I'm sorry for the slowness.

You believe there may be an infinite regress of cause and effect. I don't...(yet) :)

Here's why:

If every effect has a cause (via the Law of cause and effect), than if there was never a first cause there would never be any causes or effects to speak of. That's my current reasoning. Do you think it is sound? why or why not?

ps- I appreciate your patience.

Sorry! One more thing. I wanted to make it clear that I am in agreement with you that causes and effects are not entities.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I now understand the motivation of your argument, and it is a more salient point than I had first appreciated. Let me describe your claim to you, rude as that might be, and tell me if I have it right. If so, then you may want to emphasize this way of presenting your case.

You claim that the present is the way that it is in virtue of the way that it was one second ago. The universe was the way that it was one second ago in virtue of the way that it was two seconds ago. If we assume that there is no point at which this reasoning terminates, then there is no foundation upon which current facts are grounded. To draw an analogy it would be like having an infinite regress of reasons for holding some belief. Since this chain of reasons would not be grounded in some indisputable or shared fact, it would not be grounded at all.

Since I'm typing this on an iPhone, I'll wait until I have computer access before I post my response to this view, but perhaps you can confirm whether this is the sort of claim you're making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I now understand the motivation of your argument, and it is a more salient point than I had first appreciated. Let me describe your claim to you, rude as that might be, and tell me if I have it right. If so, then you may want to emphasize this way of presenting your case.

You claim that the present is the way that it is in virtue of the way that it was one second ago. The universe was the way that it was one second ago in virtue of the way that it was two seconds ago. If we assume that there is no point at which this reasoning terminates, then there is no foundation upon which current facts are grounded. To draw an analogy it would be like having an infinite regress of reasons for holding some belief. Since this chain of reasons would not be grounded in some indisputable or shared fact, it would not be grounded at all.

Since I'm typing this on an iPhone, I'll wait until I have computer access before I post my response to this view, but perhaps you can confirm whether this is the sort of claim you're making.

I don't know if I would have thought about it in those exact terms but it seems close enough to what I mean so I will await your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post #75. The wording suggests that an effect can also be a cause.

That's true in a sense. That which is an effect from a previous cause can (and I think almost always does) become a cause itself for a subsequent effect. I suppose you could take the analogy of the game of pool. The player moves his muscles which causes the pool stick to move (effect) and the pool stick's movement causes the ball to move (another effect). So the movement of the pool stick is an effect in one sense and a cause in another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true in a sense. That which is an effect from a previous cause can (and I think almost always does) become a cause itself for a subsequent effect. I suppose you could take the analogy of the game of pool. The player moves his muscles which causes the pool stick to move (effect) and the pool stick's movement causes the ball to move (another effect). So the movement of the pool stick is an effect in one sense and a cause in another.

What caused the human volition to initiate this chain of effects?

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lieu of that, perhaps you can explain why you think that the lack of an uncaused cause would entail the lack of any cause at all. If it is not due to the argument I gave above, then I fear I'm still in need of something more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lieu of that, perhaps you can explain why you think that the lack of an uncaused cause would entail the lack of any cause at all. If it is not due to the argument I gave above, then I fear I'm still in need of something more.

I think it is due to the reasoning you gave above- it's just that you put it in different terms which may or may not end up being a completely accurate representation of what I mean. Does that make sense? I'm trying to describe my position with as little "extra" detail as possible because I know how easy it is to get distracted or misguided by the extra details. So the simplest way I can put it is the way I did above.

However, Like I said, let's go with that and flesh it out. As we do, perhaps I will realize that it is a better representation of what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What caused the human volition to initiate this chain of effects?

I'm assuming that you are pointing out the problem that the Law of cause and effect poses to the idea of a free human volition?? I have many thoughts (and questions) about the topic myself...but probably won't get into it here unless pressed.

If that's not what you intended, than what are you getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not. I accept that everything is something in particular, and I do not accept the premise--for which nobody has been able to offer a non-circular and sound argument for--that infinity (or, aleph_0) is not a particular quantity.
Aleph_0, post # 71

I pointed out that the very definition of "quantity" precludes the notion of an infinite quantity. That wasn't an opinion. Quantifying consists in determining a thing's quanitity. It must be measurable or countable. Those processes require a termination point. Being determinate is essential to being a quantity.

In case I missed your specific response to this objection, please direct me to it.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The player moves his muscles which causes the pool stick to move (effect) and the pool stick's movement causes the ball to move (another effect).

Thus why the entity/effect clarification was stated. Motions do not act, they are actions. If you doubt this, substitute a spring or a length of string with the same velocity for the pool stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claim that the present is the way that it is in virtue of the way that it was one second ago. The universe was the way that it was one second ago in virtue of the way that it was two seconds ago. If we assume that there is no point at which this reasoning terminates, then there is no foundation upon which current facts are grounded. To draw an analogy it would be like having an infinite regress of reasons for holding some belief. Since this chain of reasons would not be grounded in some indisputable or shared fact, it would not be grounded at all.

My response to this is that the "in virtue of" relation permits of an infinity of relations, without contradiction. This is an interesting point, in my opinion, if only because it brings up the question, "In which contexts is infinity problematic?" In general, I don't believe that relational qualities ever forbid infinity. For instance, I am one foot away from my computer, and many feet away from China, and many more feet away from the next galaxy, and it may be the case that for any arbitrary distance, I am that far away from something (perhaps even if the something is just a point in space, if not an object in the universe). Also, one atom might have infinitely many relations to two other atoms. We could say that atom 1 has x distance to atom 2, distance y to 3, is closer to 2 than 3, has angle theta from 2 to 1 to 3, and so on. It might be possible to list infinitely many relational facts about just three atoms in space, and it is in virtue of these facts that the atoms are the way that they are. But this does nothing to raise suspicion about the fact that they are the way they are. It is not as though a thing's being is somehow in jeopardy, or somehow inconsistent or ill-defined, if it is that way in virtue of infinitely many other facts.

This is a subtle philosophical point, and for that reason I am very happy we've had this conversation. We may still disagree at the end of this, but I thank you for having pressed us all to think about this matter, since it seems to have more philosophical weight than we had probably realized.

I think it is due to the reasoning you gave above- it's just that you put it in different terms which may or may not end up being a completely accurate representation of what I mean. Does that make sense? I'm trying to describe my position with as little "extra" detail as possible because I know how easy it is to get distracted or misguided by the extra details. So the simplest way I can put it is the way I did above.

However, Like I said, let's go with that and flesh it out. As we do, perhaps I will realize that it is a better representation of what I mean.

This makes sense, but I want to make sure I respond to you rather than just my imagination about what you're saying.

Aleph_0, post # 71

I pointed out that the very definition of "quantity" precludes the notion of an infinite quantity. That wasn't an opinion. Quantifying consists in determining a thing's quanitity. It must be measurable or countable. Those processes require a termination point. Being determinate is essential to being a quantity.

In case I missed your specific response to this objection, please direct me to it.

Mindy

You stated it but were never able to substantiate your claim. I invite you to try now, but merely stating "quantity implies that you can count it (in finite time, I assume, since one could in principle count out the natural numbers given infinite time, even though at no particular time would they all have been enumerated)" is insufficient. You must prove that, as well.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated it but were never able to substantiate your claim. I invite you to try now, but merely stating "quantity implies that you can count it (in finite time, I assume, since one could in principle count out the natural numbers given infinite time, even though at no particular time would they all have been enumerated)" is insufficient. You must prove that, as well.

I suggest your wording misleads. "...were never able to substantiate..." implies you asked for proof, or I tried to offer some...

I did this extraordinary thing, I looked it up. I looked it up in many places. I looked up various forms. History of mathematics also substantiates this point. Numbers come from exhaustive one-to-one correspondences. No termination point, no correspondence. Measurement of part of something does not constitute measuring it. Infinite means indeterminate, not measured, not counted, not quantified.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, numbers come from exhaustive one-to-one correspondences. That does not imply the lack of a termination point, lack of correspondence.

Take the one-to-one correspondence between the natural numbers and the even numbers, given by the map n |--> 2n. Let us say that, when we evaluate the map for a given natural number, we are evaluating the function f. Suppose f(n) = f(n'), then 2n = 2n' thus n = n'. This proves injectivity, and surjectivity is obvious. Thus this is an exhaustive one-to-one correspondence, and the domain is infinite. Likewise, nothing bars the existence of a one-to-one correspondence between the natural numbers and things in reality. Sure, short human life span prevents a person actually going around and telling you what the n-th number corresponds to, but that doesn't forbid a correspondence actually existing. Correspondences don't depend on human thought, unless you're one of those Primacy of Consciousness peoples.

So perhaps you can supply a proof then...

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus why the entity/effect clarification was stated. Motions do not act, they are actions. If you doubt this, substitute a spring or a length of string with the same velocity for the pool stick.

I agree with this and remember reading about it in "Objectivism" by Peikoff..that it is the nature of the object which determines the cause/effect not the motion. However, the object alone with all of it's natural qualities would not have produced any motion (causes of effects) so it seems both are necessary when considering cause and effect- but it is helpful to distinguish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aleph_0, post # 71

I pointed out that the very definition of "quantity" precludes the notion of an infinite quantity. That wasn't an opinion. Quantifying consists in determining a thing's quanitity. It must be measurable or countable. Those processes require a termination point. Being determinate is essential to being a quantity.

In case I missed your specific response to this objection, please direct me to it.

Mindy

Should I take it that you agree with me that an infinite regress of causation is logically impossible then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From post #83. It is incorrect to state that the pool stick "caused" the ball to move. Just as it would be incorrect to state that a pool stick caused a bowling ball to "not" move. In both instances, the most one can say about the cue ball and the bowling ball (and indeed the pool stick and the person moving the pool stick too) is that they all behaved in accordance with their natures. You cannot explain "why" they behaved as they did, you can only observe how they behaved. An engineer or scientist might ask the question "under what conditions might I expect to observe similar behavior?" and then proceed to conduct experiments to see if he can replicate a similar event. But to ask "why" is an improper question. And to try and trace back the genesis of the "event" leads to an infinite regression.

This is very important in understanding Objectivism because it is the foundation for Rand's position on Individualism. By Objectivist metaphysics, no one person can CAUSE another person to behave in any manner. Each individual behaves in accordance with their nature. In this senses, each individual is a Immovable Mover – an end within himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response to this is that the "in virtue of" relation permits of an infinity of relations, without contradiction. This is an interesting point, in my opinion, if only because it brings up the question, "In which contexts is infinity problematic?" In general, I don't believe that relational qualities ever forbid infinity. For instance, I am one foot away from my computer, and many feet away from China, and many more feet away from the next galaxy, and it may be the case that for any arbitrary distance, I am that far away from something (perhaps even if the something is just a point in space, if not an object in the universe). Also, one atom might have infinitely many relations to two other atoms. We could say that atom 1 has x distance to atom 2, distance y to 3, is closer to 2 than 3, has angle theta from 2 to 1 to 3, and so on. It might be possible to list infinitely many relational facts about just three atoms in space, and it is in virtue of these facts that the atoms are the way that they are. But this does nothing to raise suspicion about the fact that they are the way they are. It is not as though a thing's being is somehow in jeopardy, or somehow inconsistent or ill-defined, if it is that way in virtue of infinitely many other facts.

While I appreciate your thoughts here, I'm afraid I don't see the connection to cause and effect which demonstrates that either (1)I am in need of a more thorough explanation from you OR (2) Your perception of my argument wasn't as close as I thought it was. haha. Either way, I apologize.

I'm trying stick with the simplest form possible which is why I keep going back and trying to reword the Law of Cause and Effect. It seems as though what I am trying to say is wrapped up in the very definitions of the words being used so that it is sort of "axiomatic" in a sense.

Every effect has a cause (by definition). This means that every effect must have been preceded by a cause.

Every cause has an effect (by definition). This means every cause must be followed by an effect.

A cause can either be the result of another cause (thus also being an effect in a different relationship) or it can be uncaused. If it is caused, it is preceded by another cause.Thus the "chain" of cause and effect.

Because of these very definitions, there is a necessary "linear" progression that is actual and therefore must have had a beginning at some point and the beginning must be a cause that is not also an effect or "an uncaused cause".

This is a subtle philosophical point, and for that reason I am very happy we've had this conversation. We may still disagree at the end of this, but I thank you for having pressed us all to think about this matter, since it seems to have more philosophical weight than we had probably realized.

Inspiring deeper thought is one of my greatest passions and joys in life. :) I actually tend to be somewhat of an irritant to most people because of my rabid curiosity...but I'm only so curious because I am certain that behind all the question marks are glorious exclamation points.

Hopefully I haven't become too irritating on here yet since I am still only a "newbie".

This makes sense, but I want to make sure I respond to you rather than just my imagination about what you're saying.

I appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From post #83. It is incorrect to state that the pool stick "caused" the ball to move. Just as it would be incorrect to state that a pool stick caused a bowling ball to "not" move. In both instances, the most one can say about the cue ball and the bowling ball (and indeed the pool stick and the person moving the pool stick too) is that they all behaved in accordance with their natures. You cannot explain "why" they behaved as they did, you can only observe how they behaved. An engineer or scientist might ask the question "under what conditions might I expect to observe similar behavior?" and then proceed to conduct experiments to see if he can replicate a similar event. But to ask "why" is an improper question. And to try and trace back the genesis of the "event" leads to an infinite regression.

This is very important in understanding Objectivism because it is the foundation for Rand's position on Individualism. By Objectivist metaphysics, no one person can CAUSE another person to behave in any manner. Each individual behaves in accordance with their nature. In this senses, each individual is a Immovable Mover – an end within himself.

But the objects nature ALONE is not sufficient for it to move. I understand that the same motion applied to a ball will result in a different effect than when applied to a brick wall and that therefore it is important to consider the nature of a thing when we are discussing cause and effect. But, left to itself and it's nature, the ball does not move. It is only when a specific type of action is taken that the nature of the ball is effected in a certain way.

Like I said before, I think this is a helpful distinction to point out, but it seems as though you are relegating cause & effect (or motion upon objects) to irrelevance while also assuming that every scientific thinker who has talked about cause and effect has mindlessly forgotten that the nature of the thing causing and the nature of the thing being effected matters...which seems rather unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I appreciate your thoughts here, I'm afraid I don't see the connection to cause and effect which demonstrates that either (1)I am in need of a more thorough explanation from you OR (2) Your perception of my argument wasn't as close as I thought it was. haha. Either way, I apologize.

No problem, but I thought this might happen.

Because of these very definitions, there is a necessary "linear" progression that is actual and therefore must have had a beginning at some point and the beginning must be a cause that is not also an effect or "an uncaused cause".

Why must it have had a beginning? I have to say, with no intention of insulting you, that this conversation has the same flavor as the conversation I've had about the possibility of an actual infinite quantity. My interlocutor will say that infinite x is impossible, and I will ask for a demonstration of why that is so, but not receive one. You say that infinite causes is impossible, and I ask why I should believe that. This is the crux of the matter, so all of your effort should be devoted to proving that an infinity of causes throughout history is impossible. I understand the desire to not commit yourself to certain theses, like the one I presented and then argued against above, because you wish to avoid unnecessary distraction. But at a certain point, you must have some argument about the relevant and essential points of your claim, and that is going to require you to have some philosophical commitments. At this point in the conversation, it just can't be avoided in order to make progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem, but I thought this might happen.

Why must it have had a beginning? I have to say, with no intention of insulting you, that this conversation has the same flavor as the conversation I've had about the possibility of an actual infinite quantity. My interlocutor will say that infinite x is impossible, and I will ask for a demonstration of why that is so, but not receive one. You say that infinite causes is impossible, and I ask why I should believe that. This is the crux of the matter, so all of your effort should be devoted to proving that an infinity of causes throughout history is impossible. I understand the desire to not commit yourself to certain theses, like the one I presented and then argued against above, because you wish to avoid unnecessary distraction. But at a certain point, you must have some argument about the relevant and essential points of your claim, and that is going to require you to have some philosophical commitments. At this point in the conversation, it just can't be avoided in order to make progress.

I don't remember if you responded to this "argument" before. If so, please refer me to it.

If there was never a first, there would never be a second. If there was never a second, there would not be a third, etc... to the present.

There are present causes & effects, therefore there must have been a first.

If you don't "buy" that, then perhaps it would be wise to stick with your analogy of my argument because you DO hold that there cannot be an infinite regression in REASONS for something. And in a sense, a cause is a reason for an effect. There are current effects which are explained by previous causes which are further explained by previous causes, etc.... but if there was never a first cause there would never be a foundational reason for the way the effects are at present.

how's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the objects nature ALONE is not sufficient for it to move. I understand that the same motion applied to a ball will result in a different effect than when applied to a brick wall and that therefore it is important to consider the nature of a thing when we are discussing cause and effect. But, left to itself and it's nature, the ball does not move.

If two meteors collide in the depth of space, which is the cause and which is the effect? If you and I are driving cars and collide in an intersection which is the cause and which is the effect? All things, including the cue ball and pool table, are in motion. And, as Newton pointed out, each action has an equal and opposite reaction. My position is that your Law of Cause and Effect is tantamount to asking "why" - which as I stated is an unanswerable and incorrect question. One can only observe the Universe one cannot change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...