The causality argument is finally settled

[lifegazer]

An Absolute Cause must exist.
Why?
... Because a mechanism of effects cannot be the cause of ALL "things" ad infinitum.
Why?
... Because such a position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.
(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.
(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.
Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

The whole "effects ad infinitum" house of cards comes toppling down with this question. Explanation:-

By default, if there are no singular (absolutely so) causes for any effects, then all effects must be viewed as a product of collective causes (a "mechanism"). By default, "a mechanism" is viewed as a collective whole, such as the brain or an engine or the atom, etc..
There is no "randomness" in the effects yielded by the mechanisms that we behold: they all produce ordered effects. Hence, the laws of physics and other science.

Therefore, we see that:-
Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

Thus, we see that there is a singular force in existence, which completely contradicts the argument for effects ad infinitum.

Behold, there is an Absolute cause.

 

[jay gw]

Does every effect have to have a cause? How do you know?

You're using 'absolute' and 'singular' interchangeably. They are two different things.

what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

Wait a minute. Why would effects cause effects? I thought causes cause effects.

 

[lifegazer]

Does every effect have to have a cause? How do you know?

Every sensed thing has a cause, that's for sure, since everything that is sensed is derivative of the sensations themselves. First, the sensation(s), then the awareness of "things".
So, no sensed-thing exists within the awareness of humanity that can be said to be acausal.

Also, I read this from the OP of my thread titled "God, the primal-cause of all effects.":-
... an absolute causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity/medium for its own existence.
... If logic pursues the definition of an absolute causal-agent with any kind of stringent reasoning, there can be no leeway which enables us to define such agents as effects of other entities, nor leeway which enables us to define such agents as dependents of an external environment.
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.

As you can see, only an absolute cause could be defined as acausal. Effects in spacetime cannot.

You're using 'absolute' and 'singular' interchangeably. They are two different things.

A singular-cause of any effect is the same thing as the absolute-cause for that effect.

 

[lifegazer]

Wait a minute. Why would effects cause effects? I thought causes cause effects.

The argument under scrutiny is that all singular effects are products of other mechanistic-groups of effects... ad infinitum.
To hold this viewpoint is to invoke the usage of the word 'cause' for those groups.
Note, this is not my viewpoint.

There seems a reluctance on your part to answering the [blue] question in my OP.
Is this to be the general theme of this thread?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lifegazer, I think your arguments would look smarter if you could fit the term "entropy" into them.

Seriously, it is not possible yo assess your argumentation in a usefule way, because you use ad hoc definitions for a number of terms. Thus nobody can divine exactly what language we are supposed to speak for the current occasion.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But, what the heck, I'll try anyhow:

*snip*

Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

*snip*

However, that is not given. Who (holding a materialistic position) has claimed that no singular causes exist?

Alternatively, how do YOU come to the premise that no singular causes exist?

Hans

 

[lifegazer]

Let it be said that your first post was a disgraceful cop-out.

"(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?"

However, that is not given. Who (holding a materialistic position) has claimed that no singular causes exist?

Well you'd better start claiming it because an absolutely singular cause for any effect = the existence of an absolute-cause.
Make-up your mind which way you want to play this.

A singular-cause of any effect is the same thing as the absolute-cause for that effect.

*whisper*: You are aware of the fact, being an atheist and a materialist, that the existence of an absolute-cause is not in your best interests if you want to cling onto your beliefs, aren't you?

 

[Dancing David]

An Absolute Cause must exist.
Why?
... Because a mechanism of effects cannot be the cause of ALL "things" ad infinitum.
Why?


Only because you don't like it doesn't mean it is true, but then you have demonstrated a lack of imagination in the past.
... Because such a position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.

rephrase: It would appear that we can not discern a single causation for the diverse universe.

(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.

It appears that there are many factors which influence the outcome of 'events'. Some are deterministic but unpredictable.

(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.

THIS IS A TOTALY UNFOUNDED ASSERTION! You have not shown your work, nor have you shown how this derives from any sort of world view.
It appears that there are multiple effects whith a plurality of causes.

Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

You assume that there is a singular mechanism in the production of a effect.

Why can thier not be a pluality of effects creating a terminal cause?

You have yet to demonstrate your reasoning, logic or evidence.

You truely show yourself to be bound by your preconcieved notions, unfortunately you just set up strawmen based upon your own biases and then knock them down.
No sport in that!

The whole "effects ad infinitum" house of cards comes toppling down with this question. Explanation:-

By default, if there are no singular (absolutely so) causes for any effects, then all effects must be viewed as a product of collective causes (a "mechanism"). By default, "a mechanism" is viewed as a collective whole, such as the brain or an engine or the atom, etc..

Uh again you are just demonstrating your preconceptions and showing that you are hidebound in your thoughts.
The brain does not have to be viewed as a collective whole, it can be viewed as the seperate actions of the individual nuerons.

There is no "randomness" in the effects yielded by the mechanisms that we behold: they all produce ordered effects. Hence, the laws of physics and other science.

There is a difference between apparent order and actual order.

Can you predict which area an electron will appear in, current theory states and predicts this is not possible. The order is percieved, you havene't demostrated it to exist.

I refer you to the Coulomb effect and the potential for the fusion of hydorgen into helium.


Therefore, we see that:-
Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

Unfounded assertion, show your work!


Thus, we see that there is a singular force in existence, which completely contradicts the argument for effects ad infinitum.

Behold, there is an Absolute cause.

You have merely shown your personal and cultural bias.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Behold, there is an Absolute cause.

Even _if_, so what?

 

[Z]

Frankly, I don't think Bob's Question in Blue has any meaning yet. In order to discern exactly what he's asking, we need clear, concise, and agreeable definitions of 'singular cause', 'singular', 'singular effects', 'acting collectively', 'singular mechanism', and 'proceeding effect'. Otherwise, might as well discuss the meaning of life as related to Denebian's preference of live Mozart vs. live Queen performances.

As for this gem:

So, no sensed-thing exists within the awareness of humanity that can be said to be acausal.

I believe I already discussed the fact that the sensations which produce your 'sensed things' are themselves caused by interactions of physical forces in the Real world - So, no, no 'sensed-thing' is acausal, any more than a painting can be acausal. But the cause of said 'sensed-thing' and the sensations which led to it, the real physical event itself, certainly might be acausal in itself, or might not be. Certainly, however, general rules of physics suggest that nothing happens in a void, so to speak; that every current event has roots somewhere about the Big Bang. The only point at which an acausal event might happen, if I understand correctly, is at the First Moment - yet, even this we cannot discern. It may well be the Universe is in an oscillating state - first expanding, then contracting and collapsing into singularity, only to Bang again - and again - and again - ad-infinitum.

Ya know, Bob, considering how your more clear and well-defined statements have turned out to be blatantly wrong and easily disproven, it's no wonder you've turned to asking a strange and essentially incomprehensible question as your 'proof' of God.

Frankly, though, what does it all matter? Even if you are right, it changes nothing at all.

Besides, what are you going to do? You've now warned us that 'This is your last chance', etc. What, do you have a Neutron Bomb or something? I mean, really, do you think we're quaking in our collective sensed-boots?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let it be said that your first post was a disgraceful cop-out.

Well, it was not meant to be nice . However, you go right on proving my point, below..

Well you'd better start claiming it because an absolutely singular cause for any effect = the existence of an absolute-cause.
Make-up your mind which way you want to play this.

LG, I'm not playing. Are you? What, in your current lingo, is an "absolute-case"? It is not in any dictionary I have.

A singular-cause of any effect is the same thing as the absolute-cause for that effect.

And, how should that shake my world?

*whisper*: You are aware of the fact, being an atheist and a materialist, that the existence of an absolute-cause is not in your best interests if you want to cling onto your beliefs, aren't you?

What makes you think I want to cling to my beliefs?

Hans

 

[lifegazer]

(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.

THIS IS A TOTALY UNFOUNDED ASSERTION! You have not shown your work, nor have you shown how this derives from any sort of world view.
It appears that there are multiple effects whith a plurality of causes.

You have two choices:-
(1) Support the notion that an absolute-cause exists, which are singular causes; or,
(2) Support the notion that each effect is caused by a multi-effect mechanism.
Which is it to be?
You can make my job easy and support the case for an absolute-cause if you like, but you'd better be prepared to acknowledge your God in the process.
Otherwise, just answer the [blue] question.

Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

You assume that there is a singular mechanism in the production of a effect.

I assume nothing: I'm merely asking a question to those that believe that all effects are products of a multi-effect mechanism.
A mechanism is a singular whole - the effect which is said to be yielded from the mechanism is yielded via the actions of this singular whole.

Why can thier not be a pluality of effects creating a terminal cause?

Did you actually read any of these posts?!
The question [in blue] and the proceeding explanation demonstrates why this cannot be the case.

You have yet to demonstrate your reasoning, logic or evidence.

You have yet to read it, apparently.

The brain does not have to be viewed as a collective whole, it can be viewed as the seperate actions of the individual nuerons.

Irrelevant. I was just giving examples of mechanisms. Even the parts of the brain - if responsible for single effects - are still mechanisms producing an effect.

There is a difference between apparent order and actual order.

Can you predict which area an electron will appear in,

We can only sense where an electron will appear within sensed space. All of this space is illusory.
I make one prediction about electrons: they will appear somewhere in your awareness. Nowhere else.

current theory states and predicts this is not possible. The order is percieved, you havene't demostrated it to exist.

All sensed-things derive from the 5 sensations which we have, which themselves have a cause. Don't make a monkey out of yourself by arguing that sensations might be uncaused.
Since the sensations are ordered to give the appearance of a universe, then ANY sensed-thing discerned via these sensations must be considered as 'ordered'.

Therefore, we see that:-
Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

Unfounded assertion, show your work!

There must be, ultimately, a singular reason why a mechanism will always produce the same effect (whether we understand what it is or not).
If there weren't singular reasons for this, then there would be no science. Science relies upon the predictability of systems (mechanisms).

 

[JAK]

I was wondering what the purpose of this issue was. I believe you (lifegazer) presented it here:

<blockquote>
<hr>

You have two choices:-
(1) Support the notion that an absolute-cause exists, which are singular causes; or,
(2) Support the notion that each effect is caused by a multi-effect mechanism.
Which is it to be?
You can make my job easy and support the case for an absolute-cause if you like, but you'd better be prepared to acknowledge your God in the process.
<hr>
</blockquote>

If I understand you correctly, then the underlying point of this thread is that "absolute cause" proves the existence of God.

Even if I were to accept "absolute cause," this does not presume any definition of God. I could still view God as the sum of all mechanistic laws of the universe empowered with force but with no "mind" as we know it. "Absolute cause" would then be mechanistic in my view.

This thread appears to be a stepping stone in a larger argument. QUESTION: Where are you going with this thread? What's your ultimate goal?

 

[jay gw]

Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

There are no singular mechanisms. You say that there are no singular causes, but then say singular mechanisms are ACTING as singular causes to cause a proceeding effect.

 

[lifegazer]

There are no singular mechanisms. You say that there are no singular causes, but then say singular mechanisms are ACTING as singular causes to cause a proceeding effect.

You need to re-read this thread because that's not what I say at all.
I say that if you believe that there is no absolute cause for anything, then you are saying that there are no singular causes in existence.
I then go on to say:
"There must be, ultimately, a singular reason why a mechanism will always produce the same effect (whether we understand what it is or not).
If there weren't singular reasons for this, then there would be no science. Science relies upon the predictability of systems (mechanisms)."

Hence, by showing that there are singular reasons/forces/laws dictating why the parts of a mechanism will produce a specific effect, I refute the idea that there are no singular causes in existence... hence I refute the idea that there is no absolute cause... hence I refute the notion that a mechanism of effects is the cause of ALL "things" ad infinitum.

And so, as the title says, the causality-argument is finally settled.

 

[jay gw]

I say that if you believe that there is no absolute cause for anything, then you are saying that there are no singular causes in existence.

What you mean to say is this:

If there are absolute causes for ANYTHING
Then there is an absolute cause for EVERYTHING


---Which is wrong.

"There must be, ultimately, a singular reason why a mechanism will always produce the same effect

What if the singular reason is made up of multiple causes?

 

[Z]

Alas, it is not so, Bob.

If what you are referring to are the 'laws' which 'govern' physics, let us remember that these are merely human interpretations of consistant physical phenomena. For example, temperature doesn't ACTUALLY come in degrees; we measured the various heights of columns of mercury in response to different temperatures, and marked the one which occured when water froze as 0 and the one when water boiled as 100. Entirely arbitrary. Yet, we say that 'water boils at 100 degrees', but this doesn't make the magic number 100 any more or less significant. Yes, physical laws govern that water should boil under the right conditions to do so - but these laws are as intangible as mathematical points and infinity - more concepts for which you have limited understanding.

If what you are asking is, what causes the laws of the Universe to be, then we're discussing something that really has no answer yet. We've never witnessed a law generate a new law, nor any object generate a new law or change an existing law. Rather, we've had to redefine laws as we find phenomena which contradict old 'laws'.

So, my problem remains, what, exactly, is the blue question really asking, Bob?

 

[lifegazer]

If what you are referring to are the 'laws' which 'govern' physics, let us remember that these are merely human interpretations of consistant physical phenomena.

Of course, but they reflect a singular order which is actually governing the behaviour of all things.

If what you are asking is, what causes the laws of the Universe to be,

The issue is simple: Is there evidence of singular cause in existence?
If not, then answer the blue question.

Can anyone here answer that question directly or not?

 

[Z]

But what do you mean by 'singular cause'? Are you discussing an event that causes another event without interaction from a third event? Or are you discussing unique events that cause numerous related events without changing itself? What do you mean by saying 'singular'?

And, further, you have yet to properly explain the blue question.

 

[lifegazer]

But what do you mean by 'singular cause'? Are you discussing an event that causes another event without interaction from a third event?

I'm discussing an entity which, alone, is responsible for the creation of another entity.

And, further, you have yet to properly explain the blue question.

If you lack the ability to understand simple English, then you won't be able to answer the question anyway. So don't worry about it.