On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:45:26, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
No, the issue is based on the fact that if an event is at the end of
an infinite causal chain, that event can never occur, because the
infinite must be complete/traversed before it can occur. Maybe I
should reword my premise to note that no thing exists at the end of an
infinite causal chain (or is preceded by an infinite causal regress).
Word it any way you want.
Well, I reworded it above. Do you have any response. Do you actually
believe that an event that has occured was preceded by an infinite
causal regress?
The above does not answer the point established here. Anything that
exists at the end of a causal chain exists at the end of a finite
causal chain (because if an infinite causal chain preceded it, it
would never beging to exist).
Thank you for agreeing that it is possible for a series with no first
term to exist.
The argument, again, was that you cannot have infinite causal regress.
You cannot have a succession of causes in reality that stretches back
into infinity. It would never begin. Sure, we can have it as part of a
mathematical concept, but such does not exist in reality. Furthermore,
as I have reworded it, nothing can be at the end of an infinite causal
chain, because such a thing would never begin to exist!
Maybe. Interestingly, I never invoked any notion of "an infinite god."
What makes you think this is relevant to my actualt argument?
No. 2 in your list of points refers to an infinite god.
You can't be serious! Premise (2) was as follows:
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
There is no reference to an infinite God. Please try to stay focused
on the actual argument.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
Therefore there cannot be a god
Your statement certainly cannot be inferred from (4).
Oh? What caused god, or is it an infinite god you are speaking of?
Again with God? I said that your statement "there cannot be a God"
does not follow from "every causal chain has a first cause." You need
to stay focused. Let me make this more clear. The following does not
follow:
Every causal chain has a first cause, therefore there cannot be a god
There is not reason to accept that proposition as true. Premise (4)
does not imply your statement in any way. I'm starting to wonder if
you even understand the argument you are responding to.
No premise in my argument claims that God is not caused. In fact, no
deity is ever mentioned in the argument. Thus this objection of yours
is simply a straw man.
Then there is no reason to talk about a god at all.
You're the one who brought God up!
If you do excuse
him, there is no reason to not excuse everything from being caused.
As the argument clearly states, an entity that acts uncaused, implies
volition. So, for example, if you walk across the room, and no causal
agent caused you to do that, then you did it of your own free will.
That is my point. A first cause, by definition, is not preceded by any
other cause (because it is the first in the chain). However, if this
first cause sets other causal links in the chain into motion, how does
it do this without volition? This is why a first cause is personal
rather than mechanical.
In other words you assume your conclusion.
Uh, no, the conclusion follows from the premises, and the conclusion
is not assumed in the premises. Do I need to repeat my argument again?
-Nico Demusopelous
.
