A Cosmological argument for materialism.

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

Ah yes, I remember seeing this on OT. Sounds alright to me.

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

I want that part explained a little more. So the belief in say, a First Cause and the like is valid, but it doesn't exist anymore, or doesn't exist by our understanding of the word "exist".

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

STWELCH

I want that part explained a little more. So the belief in say, a First Cause and the like is valid, but it doesn't exist anymore, or doesn't exist by our understanding of the word "exist".

Yup the argument is basically saying that there is a non-physical first cause but that it may not actually exist. It's really more of a reductio ad absurdum argument to get people away from the "God doesn't need a cause because he is supernatural" excuse.

Premise four is arrived at logically from the first two premises. We say there is an earliest physical event, that is an event before which there existed nothing physical. We then say that every physical event, including the first physical event, must have a cause. Since there was nothing physical before the earliest physical event we must conclude that the cause of the earliest physical event was non-physical.

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

I have a few problems with this argument, mainly in that the postulates it lays at the foundations are too absolute considering what we know of the physical universe (as far as I know, so don't rip me apart if I'm wrong on something). P1 I agree with, at some point there must have been a first cause, or a first "event" as we see it. P2 however is too absolute. It assumes we know the cause of everything. Say an apple falling from a tree is the event. Naturally the cause would be claimed to be gravity. but gravity is merely the theory we have for objects being attracted to each other, which itself is a physical event, and thus must be caused by something as well. As far as I know, the physical cause of this, the graviton, has not been found yet, so we can't be sure it exists (P3). Because of this ignorance, it remains a possibility that gravity is a cause-less occurance. Though all scientific evidence points torwards this not being the case, the fact that it could be the case makes P2 a postulate with a less than perfect foundation to try and explain the beginnings of the universe. What exactly causes the random vibrations of atoms? We don't know. This argument makes strong statements that really don't have enough backing.

(just realized that I didn't leave "the original cosmological argument intact", but I still think it's relevant to the discussion)

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

 

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

danwallacefan

Premise three only says that every physical cause must be existent. An exception is made for the supernatural just like an exception is made for causality.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

Premise three only says that every physical cause must be existent. An exception is made for the supernatural just like an exception is made for causality.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

 

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

danwallacefan

Premise three only says that every physical cause must be existent. An exception is made for the supernatural just like an exception is made for causality.

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

danwallacefan

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

domatron23

The basis of this argument is formed from the study of physical elements and phenomenon.

God never began to exist.

God, unlike the universe and all of temporal existence, can be explained by the necessity of his own nature.

danwallacefan

The purpose of these claims is to try and make god fit into the argument. Therefore, it is possible for other claims to take its place. Bear in mind that you are talking about supernatural things.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

No I'm not assuming naturalism I'm just using the properties of the supernatural to befuddle the cosmological argument. The typical tripping block for the cosmological argument is the old "what caused God" question. Some people get around that by saying that causality only applies to physical things and that a supernatural thing can be uncaused (which is implicit in premise 2). I'm just making another exception to the rule, this time about existence (which is what premise 3 is all about).

danwallacefan

It doesn't really matter if we're talking about causality or contingency, either way you have to make an exception for the supernatural. All that I'm trying to do is shoe-horn a similar exception for a first cause's existence.

Going by this logic... does that mean that there are more non-physical events happening that also don't exist?helium_flash

idunnomate

All that this argument really does is muck around with the conclusion of the cosmological argument. It's not really trying to establish anything seriously.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Going by this logic... does that mean that there are more non-physical events happening that also don't exist?domatron23

idunnomate

All that this argument really does is muck around with the conclusion of the cosmological argument. It's not really trying to establish anything seriously.