Thoughts on an anti-"First Cause" syllogism?

[MrFrankZito]

Found this on the blog "My Case Against God" and was curious whether JREF forum members think it's valid and possibly sound.

Definition of terms:

"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."

"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."


Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."


I'm not sure about the soundness, but it seems structurally valid, in the sense of the grammar of a simple syllogism.

Quoted from here.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

MrFrankZito

Hmmmm.

I'd say possibly.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's really just a circular bit of assuming the consequent by definition.

Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

This just redefines cause as something that occurs before effect. There's no actual way to prove that cause always precedes effect, the author just kind of hopes it does.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.

This is backwards. The proof does not say that cause and effect must only be bound by time. They could be bound by time and bound by something else.

Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."

The author gives no reason why God would be a "timeless" being. There's no reason God couldn't exist both in and out of time. There's no reason God couldn't be a being existing in time. frankly, the author never actually says that his "timeless being" is God. He never says a "timeless being" exists at all.

The only thing he says is: All A's are B. C is not B. Thus, C is not A.

That's just not very good.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Definition of terms:

"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."

I think that definition may run into difficulty with the Theory of Relativity.

 

[I Am The Scum]

.This just redefines cause as something that occurs before effect. There's no actual way to prove that cause always precedes effect, the author just kind of hopes it does.

If that's not true, then theistic first-cause arguments are in trouble. We could say, for example, that there is a "first cause," and that it might be me, tomorrow. I wouldn't be a god in those circumstances.

 

[Loss Leader]

If that's not true, then theistic first-cause arguments are in trouble. We could say, for example, that there is a "first cause," and that it might be me, tomorrow. I wouldn't be a god in those circumstances.

The theistic first cause arguments were always in trouble.

 

[MrFrankZito]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I appreciate your comments very much.

Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

This just redefines cause as something that occurs before effect. There's no actual way to prove that cause always precedes effect, the author just kind of hopes it does.

Does it really do that, though? I don't think "cause" preceding "effect" is a necessary component of the argument at all. The argument merely requires that "cause" and "effect" are bound by time. And, in the case of the argument, being bound by time entails each one having a temporal location relative to the other. Couldn't that location be before, after or simultaneous to without affecting the argument?

I'd think the way to explode the conclusion would be to point out an instance in which "cause" and "effect" don't have a temporal location relative to each other.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.

This is backwards. The proof does not say that cause and effect must only be bound by time. They could be bound by time and bound by something else.

I don't understand how that observation makes Premise 3 untrustworthy, given the definition of a "timeless being" that the syllogism is using. If "a timeless being" is defined as "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything," then such a being could not be bound by time. To be bound by time involves having a temporal location relative to that to which the thing is bound.

Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."

The author gives no reason why God would be a "timeless" being. There's no reason God couldn't exist both in and out of time. There's no reason God couldn't be a being existing in time. Frankly, the author never actually says that his "timeless being" is God. He never says a "timeless being" exists at all.

Inasmuch as, presumably, this is an attempted answer to William Lane Craig's (and others') cosmological argument for God's existence, it seems that the argument's force -- if it's sound -- is that a timeless being cannot cause anything because causation is intrinsically temporal...because causation does not exist outside of time.

If causation is intrinsically, inescapably temporal, then a God that exists outside of time and has no temporal location relative to any supposed "effect" cannot be any such effect's "cause." If God exists in time -- if God does have a temporal location relative to the effects he supposedly causes -- then I don't see how the God concept can avoid William Lane Craig's own rejection of actual infinites.

Craig argues, for example, if our universe emerged from a quantum vacuum that never began to exist, then that quantum vacuum would have had to traverse infinite moments to reach any point in time, including the moment when our universe emerged. If a God that never began to exist were a being that existed in time, then God, too, would have to traverse infinite moments to reach any point in time, including the moment that he “causes” something.

I suppose one could say God exists both IN and OUT of time (is both temporal and atemporal), but I think such a claim would require explanation and justification.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't think "cause" preceding "effect" is a necessary component of the argument at all. The argument merely requires that "cause" and "effect" are bound by time. And, in the case of the argument, being bound by time entails each one having a temporal location relative to the other. Couldn't that location be before, after or simultaneous to without affecting the argument.

I find this concept just silly. The only place we have to experiment with anything is in an already-existing universe where things are moving relative to each other. We cannot in any practical way demonstrate a cause and effect that doesn't have a component of time because everything in our universe has a component of time.

To that extent, "cause and effect" has really just been defined here as "any two things." It seems that in order to make the argument work, cause and effect have been stripped of their meanings entirely.

1. Bert and Ernie are connected to each other through time.
2. Big Bird is connected to nothing through time.
3. Thus, Big Bird is neither Bert nor Ernie.

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using logic alone. Logic is defined only within our universe and God may or may not be within that universe.

 

[MrFrankZito]

I find this concept just silly. The only place we have to experiment with anything is in an already-existing universe where things are moving relative to each other. We cannot in any practical way demonstrate a cause and effect that doesn't have a component of time because everything in our universe has a component of time.

To that extent, "cause and effect" has really just been defined here as "any two things." It seems that in order to make the argument work, cause and effect have been stripped of their meanings entirely.

1. Bert and Ernie are connected to each other through time.
2. Big Bird is connected to nothing through time.
3. Thus, Big Bird is neither Bert nor Ernie.

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using logic alone. Logic is defined only within our universe and God may or may not be within that universe.

The point where I disagree with you is regard to how the argument, in your eyes, redefines "cause and effect" as "any two things" because, in the universe, any two things have a temporal relationship.

It seems true that, in the universe, any two things have a temporal relationship. Our universe is, after all, a universe of space-time.

However, in my judgment, the argument merely says having a temporal relationship is a necessary condition for "cause and effect," not a sufficient condition for them.

It's interesting that you write, "Logic is defined only within our universe." I suspect the same is true for causation.

 

[Brian-M]

How about an argument along these lines...

P1. Time is an inherent property or aspect of the universe.
P2. If the universe did not exist, time could not exist.
C1. There is no time when the universe did not exist.

P3. Only things that did not exist can be caused to exist.
P4. There is no time when the universe did not exist.
C2. The universe cannot have been caused to exist.

 

[Daald]

How about this.

Space-time was created at the big bang. The thing that went bang must have preceded the big bang but it is out of our concept of time.

That can possibly disprove your second premise.

Another issue is this.

I simply reject your second premise. You have not supported it only asserted it.

 

[angrysoba]

How about this.

Space-time was created at the big bang. The thing that went bang must have preceded the big bang but it is out of our concept of time.

Isn't that a tad contradictory?

You say that X must be before Y yet X does not fit such a relation.

 

[HansMustermann]

How about this.

Space-time was created at the big bang. The thing that went bang must have preceded the big bang but it is out of our concept of time.

That can possibly disprove your second premise.

Another issue is this.

I simply reject your second premise. You have not supported it only asserted it.

Actually, it seems to me like you're the one who asserts that there was a previous "thing that went bang". Except that's not what physics says happened there. The only "thing that went bang" is our universe. It's not like some bomb went bang and that created a universe. The universe itself is what went bang.

Now maybe there was some way that that singularity formed (because essentially that's what we're talking about: a zero size thing, before it started expanding, i.e., a singularity), that would start expanding as the universe, or maybe not. Maybe it just always existed. Or maybe there was no time for it to exist in.

But there was nothing else that went bang there. The whole bang is just the universe starting expanding.

Essentially you're just squeezing in your own first cause, only instead of it being "God" it's some "thing that went bang".

So rejecting stuff based on gross misunderstanding is not very relevant.

But more importantly, you don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works, or what "possibly" means.

1. For any claim of the form "X exists", you get the burden of proof, fair and square.

We don't know of a "thing that went bang" before the universe. Even skipping over the fact that it would involve measuring something that happened before time, a nonsense right there, we can't even see close to when time-space began, because we'd need to somehow see through the moment the universe cooled enough and became transparent. There are no photons around from the time the universe was opaque to photons.

But if you think there was a "thing that went bang", you get to show it.

2. "Possibly" disproving something is not the same as actually disproving it. Especially when that in turn is depending on something "possibly" existing, but not having been shown to actually exist.

It's like saying that you could possibly have a secret bank account, which could possibly disprove that you're not a tax-dodging criminal. Or that I could possibly have a warp-capable spacecraft, which could possibly disprove the impossibility of FTL flight. So what? "Possibly" doesn't mean anything.

You can't build a theory or reject it, based on just being able to imagine stuff, because that's all that "possibly" says there.

 

[Brian-M]

(because essentially that's what we're talking about: a zero size thing, before it started expanding, i.e., a singularity)

Not necessarily zero-sized. Just small and dense enough that the known laws of physics no longer apply. At that point we cannot say anything about what came before, not even whether or not it was ever any smaller.

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to know how the laws of physics apply in a smaller-than Planck-length universe.

 

[Aridas]

Found this on the blog "My Case Against God" and was curious whether JREF forum members think it's valid and possibly sound.

Definition of terms:

"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."

"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."


Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."


I'm not sure about the soundness, but it seems structurally valid, in the sense of the grammar of a simple syllogism.

Quoted from here.

Well, given that the theists who try to use the timeless being/outside of time concepts also claim that their god has the ability to choose to be a cause at will, that's unlikely to actually be able to be meaningful from the start, before getting to the actual logic... and frankly, like Loss Leader said,

The theistic first cause arguments were always in trouble.

The theistic first cause arguments tend to have many weak points and fundamental flaws, already.

 

[Aridas]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using logic alone. Logic is defined only within our universe and God may or may not be within that universe.

I find both of these statements to be lacking. For the former, logic can disprove versions of gods with mutually contradictory traits. For the latter, that's empty assertion.

How about an argument along these lines...

P1. Time is an inherent property or aspect of the universe.
P2. If the universe did not exist, time could not exist.
C1. There is no time when the universe did not exist.

P3. Only things that did not exist can be caused to exist.
P4. There is no time when the universe did not exist.
C2. The universe cannot have been caused to exist.

A bit better than that OP's, at least. This runs into something of an issue if there's conflation between "the universe" and "our universe," though, as there will be.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not necessarily zero-sized. Just small and dense enough that the known laws of physics no longer apply. At that point we cannot say anything about what came before, not even whether or not it was ever any smaller.

I'm not sure we'll ever be able to know how the laws of physics apply in a smaller-than Planck-length universe.

Well, IF there is a beginning of space and time, it seems to me like it kinda had to start from zero. Though it existing as something else is of course another possibility.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Found this on the blog "My Case Against God" and was curious whether JREF forum members think it's valid and possibly sound.

Definition of terms:

"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."

"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."


Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.

Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."


I'm not sure about the soundness, but it seems structurally valid, in the sense of the grammar of a simple syllogism.

Quoted from here.

Meaningless twaddle. Argument through arbitrary definitions. Utter crap. Double intellectual standards. I could go on.

 

[Brian-M]

Well, IF there is a beginning of space and time, it seems to me like it kinda had to start from zero. Though it existing as something else is of course another possibility.

It could have always been expanding at an accelerating rate, in which case it would never have "started" or been zero in size.

I don't really have an opinion about whether or not that's actually the case, but it's a nice hypothetical alternative to assuming that the universe had a beginning, so I like to use it when I can.

(Cue the "infinite regression" counterargument in 3, 2, 1...)

 

[gentlehorse]

MrFrankZito

Hmmmm.

I'd say possibly.

lol

Though fond of syllogisms, the FrankZito I know would never make a case for atheism.

I really miss that guy.