Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Way Around Having a Single Cause?

Subutai
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.
Don't let this site's demise affect you:

- Make an account on eDeb8
- Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred)
- Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with
- Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...)
- Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
frbnsn
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:44:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

In fact, I think, both of you are saying same thing.

According to you, a cause must be for happening.
Your professor say 'yes, there must and it is the last ring of the chain.'
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 5:26:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:44:28 AM, frbnsn wrote:

In fact, I think, both of you are saying same thing.

According to you, a cause must be for happening.
Your professor say 'yes, there must and it is the last ring of the chain.'

Dude..
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 5:41:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Hmm.. to be safe let us break this in to two-three questions.

For example this paragraphy is interesting: "If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain."

To be safe let me paraphrase: "If we study each phenomena independently there would be no underlying cause there would only be "events", and randomness. Existence is not random. So how do we study the continuoum of life instead of cutting it in to bits & pieces?

I don't have an answer but can I ask a question?

Isn't this the basis of science? I mean all of science.

Is it even possible even to conduct experiments without assuming linearity of (cause > effect)? Is science > random?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:03:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.


An infinite causal chain or an infinite amount of causes?

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Subutai
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:04:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 5:41:09 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Hmm.. to be safe let us break this in to two-three questions.

For example this paragraphy is interesting: "If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain."

To be safe let me paraphrase: "If we study each phenomena independently there would be no underlying cause there would only be "events", and randomness. Existence is not random. So how do we study the continuoum of life instead of cutting it in to bits & pieces?

I don't have an answer but can I ask a question?

Isn't this the basis of science? I mean all of science.

Is it even possible even to conduct experiments without assuming linearity of (cause > effect)? Is science > random?

What I mean is this. the premise that there must be a first cause assumes that the cause and effect relationship looks like this:

http://www.sightwordsgame.com...

but it could also be like this:

http://www.lburkhart.com...

Ad infinitum, meaning there would be no single cause that everything goes to.
Don't let this site's demise affect you:

- Make an account on eDeb8
- Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred)
- Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with
- Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...)
- Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
Subutai
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:05:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:03:00 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.


An infinite causal chain or an infinite amount of causes?


See post 6. I don't think I worded it correctly.
I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.
Don't let this site's demise affect you:

- Make an account on eDeb8
- Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred)
- Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with
- Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...)
- Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:38:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:04:11 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/29/2014 5:41:09 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Hmm.. to be safe let us break this in to two-three questions.

For example this paragraphy is interesting: "If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain."

To be safe let me paraphrase: "If we study each phenomena independently there would be no underlying cause there would only be "events", and randomness. Existence is not random. So how do we study the continuoum of life instead of cutting it in to bits & pieces?

I don't have an answer but can I ask a question?

Isn't this the basis of science? I mean all of science.

Is it even possible even to conduct experiments without assuming linearity of (cause > effect)? Is science > random?

What I mean is this. the premise that there must be a first cause assumes that the cause and effect relationship looks like this:

http://www.sightwordsgame.com...

but it could also be like this:

http://www.lburkhart.com...

Ad infinitum, meaning there would be no single cause that everything goes to.

In that case, refer to post 2.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:02:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:57:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
Many people often claim that there was a beginning of everything. Since everything has a cause, there must be something that caused it all.

However, my professor made an interesting argument. If we treat each "thing" as having an independent cause, there'd be no single cause at all. There'd just be an infinite causal chain.

I want to know if this has any validity. If this doesn't make sense, I'm not articulating it well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Of course, one has not truly explained anything until one has accounted for the explanation, and the explanation of the explanation and so on. An infinite regress ensures that there would be no explicable explanation to be found, for if there were, it wouldn't really be infinite. Thus, everything would ultimately "just exist". Furthermore, since the universe is everything that exists, any explanation of the universe is obviously part of the universe. That is, the explanation is being enclosed by the thing it is trying to explain. This means that an explanation of the universe must be "closed-form", which an infinite regress obviously isn't.

On a side note, it's unnecessary to assume that the "final cause" of the universe took place at some precise moment in the past. I hold that the creation event is distributed over all of time, and that the universe is still in the process of self-configuring across time.
"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."