Sorry for hiatus, had assingment to finish (another one looming as well…)

A first cause is an interesting theoretical possibility and it does make for interesting discussions. However that is all it is.

But of course, there’s absolutely no way you can demonstrate (let alone prove) that a first cause is only an ‘interesting theoretical discussion piece’ and nothing more.

Actually I am quite excited about the question of a possible first cause and would love to know both if such a thing is necessary and if so what form it takes. What I don’t find exciting are the theistic answers to these questions because in my opinion they are outside the scope of the logic and also outside the scope of our knowledge.

I’m absolutely baffled about the “outside the scofe of the logic” comment. (hasn’t it been shown that a first cause is logical?) And as for the comment “…and also outside the scope of our knowledge”; I’d absolutely love to know how you know that it’s outside the scope of or knowledge… (as well as what specific kind of knowledge you’re assuming it’s outside of?)

But what I think you really should be able to concede is that a First Cause is not merely some wish-ful thinking conjured up as an emotional crutch to make us feel nice inside. It actually logically stands up – and makes basic, clear sense.

A first cause is an interesting theoretical possibility and it does make for interesting discussions. However that is all it is.

I don’t expect you to be too excited about that as an atheist.

Actually I am quite excited about the question of a possible first cause and would love to know both if such a thing is necessary and if so what form it takes. What I don’t find exciting are the theistic answers to these questions because in my opinion they are outside the scope of the logic and also outside the scope of our knowledge.

Ian,
Nobody’s saying they were there at creation, and Nobody’s saying you have to accept a first cause. But what I think you really should be able to concede is that a First Cause is not merely some wish-ful thinking conjured up as an emotional crutch to make us feel nice inside. It actually logically stands up – and makes basic, clear sense. I don’t expect you to be too excited about that as an atheist. But (as you say) it’s either a first cause or self-creation or eternal multi(uni)verse (or there’s always the “everything is an illusion” option?). Or turtles.

Even if supernatural, spirits and souls are a part of ‘normal’ causality, there must be a first/ultimate/initial causality for even these to exist.

The existence of anything makes this ‘other’ kind of causality necessary.

Not really – that is an assumption that you are making. Perhaps causality isn’t universal at all rendering the need for a first cause irrelevant. Perhaps causality is nearly universal and only breaks from that in special cases such as black holes so anything could happen with no particular cause including self-creation. Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps this universe hasn’t but others have in an eternal multiverse set up. Perhaps it’s turtles all the way down. The requirement of a first cause is an assumption. The knowledge of what such a first cause might look like is necessarily wild speculation based on that assumption. I’ll echo Simon’s point: “How the heck could this be known?”

On ‘switches’ (I’ve heard them called ‘HTML tags’???), they look like this:

< blockquote > insert quoted text here < / blockquote >
< b > insert bolded text here < / b >
< i > insert italic text here < / i >
< strike > inserted crossed out text here < / strike >
((just delete the extra spaces in the tags!!!)

Sure, spiritual things are not verified/falsified with physical methods, but would we expect that they could be? And not everything metaphysical is ‘crazy’.

Dale, can you please point me to a list of switches – ways to do italics, bold, quotes in WordPress?

“You’re still not distinguishing between the causality that we know (albeit partially), and the proposed initial/’first’ causality, which is necessary for the very existence and functioning of the causal universe we (partially) know.”

“The existence of anything makes this ‘other’ kind of causality necessary.”

I think in parallel with the insistence of a ‘divine’ type of causality, verification and falsification are thrown out the window. As soon as one calls on a concept which we cannot be familiar with, any crazy thing can be claimed. A first cause needs be found only if it is known that there could have been nothing at all. How the heck could this be known? So we focus on what we can see, which is why our definitions remain sensibly grounded.

Ian,
You’re still not distinguishing between the causality that we know (albeit partially), and the proposed initial/’first’ causality, which is necessary for the very existence and functioning of the causal universe we (partially) know.

Even if supernatural, spirits and souls are a part of ‘normal’ causality, there must be a first/ultimate/initial causality for even these to exist.

The existence of anything makes this ‘other’ kind of causality necessary.

All I am saying is that either causality is universal or it isn’t and knowing the answer to that really gives a foundation to every other aspect of explanatory discourse.

Incidentally supernatural events can still be perfectly causal. If a soul exists then when the person dies, the spirit is caused to move on from the body, etc etc, causality is preserved. Causality actually says absolutely nothing about materiality, supernaturality or any other issue – it is more basic/fundamental than that.

Ian,
We’re probably not going to get much further. I still think you’re trying to declare all things other-than-nature ‘moot’, based only on nature itself (which we don’t even know fully as is, much less how it might have been caused). You can’t make authoritative declarations (+ or -) about supernature only in terms of nature, any more than you can deny/prove ‘height-ness’ in terms of ‘length-and-width-ness’.

Your point Dale is precisely why I think figuring out if causality is universal is fundamental to the whole issue. Until we settle that issue, all talk of necessitated creators or non-causal methods of change is moot.