Muslim Philosophers were the first to attack the Argument from Originating/Occurrence "burhan al-huduth" from every possible angle.
One approach was to question what it means for a thing to begin to exist?
All definitions had been provided can be reduced to these two:
1- what is preceded by nothingness.
2- what is preceded by other.
The Philosophers had problems with these definitions.
they said: There are 4 divisions of "precedence".
The first, is the precedence by causality i.e an effect is preceded by its cause such as a lightning object preceding the light, because the light of the sun has never been disjoined from the sun, and the motion of a ring is corollary of the motion of a finger not vice versa, and that precedence is not by time.
The second, is the precedence by Time such as the precedence of Moses over Jesus and of Aristotle over Kant.
The third is the precedence by nobility such as the precedence of Jesus over his disciples, of a knowing man over an ignorant, and of an intellectual over an atheist and so on.
the fourth is the precedence by order, like in theaters, with respect to a projection screen, Rows that are closer to screen precede those which are not. and with respect to the entrance of the auditorium, rows that are closer to the door precede rows that are closer to the screen.
*The last two divisions aren't that important.
*actually there are 5 divisions but one of them was difficult for me to interpret into English, as i'm not sure that i fully understand it even in arabic
Now, as for the first definition, Philosophers asked the theologians a question; "Which one of these divisions do you mean when you say that Nothingness preceded the existence of the universe?
it's not admissible that you meant the precedence by causality since nothingness can not be a cause for anything, and the effect is co-existent along with the cause, which would imply predicating both existence and non-existence upon the universe and that's impossible.
it's not admissible that you meant the precedence by Time, for we have shown that such a thing can not be affirmed unless there is already TIME, and that time either it's accidental or eternal, the former is false due to an infinite regress. therefore, it's the latter i.e. eternal, but TIME is a consequential accident of motion which is a consequential accident of bodies and that implies the eternity of time,motion and bodies but that is not what you have sought."
as for the second definition, Philosophers said: "if that "Other" preceded the universe by causality, then you are stating our doctrine, the universe would be eternal since the Perfect cause necessitates its effect. but you do not approve of that doctrine.
and the precedence by time would lead to the same result as we've demonstrated."
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
how about a fifth? precedence by flavor: such as the precedence of Coke over Pepsi.
-------------------------------------------------
and why does an infinite regress make something false?
i think we've gone through this before.anyway, it's because an essence of a thing that does not require/necessitate its existence would need an external cause to exist. therefore, it's contingent. whatever is said to be contingent would need an external cause outside itself to preponderate its existence. no matter how many contingent beings there is, the whole aggregate would be contingent and therefore needs a necessary cause to serve as an explanation for their existence.
in other words, no matter how many contingent beings u can assume to be existent, but their existence would still not be justified on their own
Is that an argument or a postulate? If it is a postulate, fine.
But if it is an argument/conclusion, then I return to my question (modified): Why would an infinite chain of objects of type A, need an object of type B?
we've discussed why the whole aggregate of contingent things would be contingent in the comment section in the first Post, or maybe someone else.
Why this is not the composition fallacy? because we're talking about the way of a thing's existence, and that way is defined by its essence, so there is no way for some contingent things would need a cause for its existence but some other contingent things would not. for otherwise then they could not be contingent in the first place, this is how contingent beings come into existence.
you can not say some parts of a house would need to be built but the whole house would not. Or something like, some parts of the house would need construction workers in order for it to be built but the whole house would not .. and so on.
if you know that, then we say the whole aggregate of contingent things is itself contingent and therefore need an external cause, because the whole aggregate of contingent things is dependent on its parts/units for its existence. since its existence is dependent so it must be contingent and therefore needs a cause.
the cause could be the whole set itself, one of its parts, or an external cause.
The first and the second imply a vicious circle so it must be the third and it must be necessary for if it was contingent then it would've been included in the set waiting with its inmates for a necessary cause.
in short, no matter how u'd multiply the number of contingent things. at some point, u'd need to invoke a necessary being to preponderate the existence of this aggregate
the whole aggregate of objects type A cannot stand alone, its existence cannot be justified/explained through itself since it's contingent so you would need a type B object which in itself necessary in order to explain the existence of the chain.
what you are trying to do here, is just saying the whole chain is itself necessary, and that is FALSE by all means unless u managed to prove in analogical way that some parts of a house is contingent upon external cause (construction workers) but the whole house isn't.
you also would have to prove that whatever depends on something could be necessary in itself.
Good luck proving that.
ex post facto postulate.
----------------------------------
ex post facto postulate.
----------------------------------
Now we are getting to the heart of the problem; there is a very serious problem with this:
Even with the postulate that the first element of a chain of type A requires an element of type B; we can not conclude that an infinite chain of type A requires an element of type B. Why? Infinite chains do not have first elements! You are going to need yet another postulate to fix this. I recommend buying in bulk, because I got a feeling you are going to need a lot of 'em!
i'd like to know how are you quoting my statements like that, i don't see any 'quote' button anywhere.
the whole chain of contingent things is nothing other than its parts. IF the set was anything other than its parts then there would still be a set even if we have removed all its parts, but the consequent is false so is the antecedent. So, the whole chain is contingent, therefore dependent on its parts.
and i've told u, if u managed to prove that a whole house can't be contingent although its parts are contingent then i'd agree with you
and yet you haven't proved it.
If you knew what a vicious circle is, you wouldn't have said that. i think i just have to point out to you that you are not the cause of your existence nor are the cause of your whole family's existence.
why can't we conclude that the whole chain of type A does require a cause of Type B? we've already concluded it by pointing out that the whole chain is contingent, and by pointing out the impossibility of being necessary because a necessary being is not dependent on contingent beings.
Otherwise, you would have to prove that the whole chain of contingent beings is indeed necessary.
That is incorrect: that consequent is true. A set is still a set, even after the removal of all of its elements.
---------------------------------------------------
That is also far from clear. It is very dangerous to assume a set shares any attribute common to its elements. Additionally, sets typically have attributes that their elements do not.
---------------------------------------------------
As is typical for our theists posters who try to appeal to formal logic; you are playing quite fast and loose. You need to tighten this ship up considerably. Or to put it another way; you already know the conclusion you want to reach; so you are building a bridge of gossamer to reach it. You need to be more rigorous if you want to convince anyone who doesn't already believe the conclusion.
If we were about to take away all things out there, What would have been left for us? Nothing.
do you think there is a physical container out there contains the whole world?
the world is everything. If all objects out there was annihilated then there would not be anything at all.
the obtainment of a sum/total/aggregate of contingent things is a corollary/branch of the existence of the contingent things themselves, so in order for an aggregate of things to exist there have to be things already, so the existence of this aggregate is dependent on these things, and whatever depends on something else IS contingent upon it. so the whole aggregate of contingent things would be contingent. therefore, its existence cannot be justified through itself, so there has to be a necessary being preponderate the existence of it. thus, you cannot have an infinite number of contingent things.
and this is exactly the same as having a house that doesn't need a cause to exist.However, its parts does. or having a clock that its parts needs to be manufactured but the whole clock doesn't.
I told you, if you could give an example of such a thing i would agree with you. but that's impossible cause every complex thing would need its parts that made it up.
the house and the clock are nothing but the parts they were made from. they dependent on them so they are contingent
still i'd like to know about the quoting thing, how do you do it?
and i'd like to know what do you think about the universe! is it accidental or eternal?
Listen, sets exist even after you remove all of their elements, you aren't going to escape that with handwaving:
(A \ A) ∪ B = B
However, that wouldn't be possible (according to you) since A \ A wouldn't be a set.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Could be both, or either, or neither. Why only 2 choices? Could have been created 5 minutes ago with false age by a Yellow Mutant Space Chicken.
---------------------------------------------------------------
That was created like this:
<blockquote>Peripatetic - <cite>i'd like to know about the quoting thing</cite></blockquote>
in what sense do you use the word 'exist'? because there are things which exist in the mind as concepts, and things which exist outside the mind as concrete objects.
if you meant the latter, so what can i be calling a set after removing all things out there? what would be left to call a set?
-----------------------------------------------------------
eternal means that a thing never started to exist at some point, it has always existed
accidental means that a thing does start to exist at some point before which it has never been existent
so how could it be both or neither?
-----------------------------------------------------------
why don't you just give us an example of a thing that its parts are dependent or contingent but the thing it self as a whole isn't? just like the ones about the house and the clock, just to end the whole thing
I sure hope English is not your first language: that is not how the word accidental is commonly used. Using a weird definition for a word that is not commonly used that way; is a bad idea. Doing so without defining it ahead of time is just dishonest:
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to argue about set with you anymore. I told you what you said was false; and I demonstrated how what you said leads to a contradiction. I will ignore anything else you say on the matter that does not address this contradiction. Failure to address the contradictions in your arguments is the mark of a crackpot.
Again, if you want to play the game of formal proofs, you have to know the language; if you want to make sloppy hand-wavy arguments, I'm not interested.
i thought i'm using the right word. what do u call a something that begins to exist then? temporal?
maybe i didn't get the contradiction, could you please elaborate?
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, how about just using "begins/began to exist"?
---------------------------------
(A \ A) ∪ B = B
But you told us A \ A isn't a set. If so, then (A \ A) ∪ B would be undefined; instead of B. So we have a contradiction.
I had some difficulty following what you said Peripatetic, but I will use your:
1- what is preceded by nothingness.
2- what is preceded by other.
My answers:
1. Nobody really knows, we don't even know if there ever was a true "nothingness" perhaps their always was "stuff." Making up a god idea that by idea is immune to the rest of the logic we set up for reality can make for a convenient, if quite likely incorrect answer.
2. I am guessing what this is asking is: "what causes change?"
Again no one knows for sure, certainly gravity, atomic energy and time causes change now. As for the initial cause of change, I like the "infinity theory" and "imperfection" ideas a lot. But again no one knows.
Just because science/humans do not know, does not mean its god though. As god (especially as depicted by major religions) is an altogether very unlikely proposition to many other ideas/theories.
i think there's misunderstanding here. this is not an argument for the existence of god, this is one of the philosophers objections for why the universe cannot begin to exist. Muslim philosophers upheld the doctrine of the eternity of the universe
Ah sorry for my confusion.
I think the "eternity of the universe" idea has roughly the same likelihood as being the correct answer as several other theories.
I think it is entirely possible that us, "somethings" can never truly understand or comprehend true "nothing." So we may never have a satisfactory answer to these sort of questions.
Peripatetic
So your saying no god is need for the creation of the universe? Humans don't know what existed before the big bang. We may never know what created the universe. Because we don't have an answer, doesn't mean a god did it. Humans created the gods they worship to explain what they didn't understand.
no i'm not saying that. I maintain that whatever is contingent i.e cannot be justified/explained through itself, needs a necessary cause to explain it.
even Muslim philosophers who would say that the universe is eternal, argued that it must have a necessary cause since it's contingent.
"We may never know what created the universe. Because we don't have an answer, doesn't mean a god did it"
Since the universe is contingent, then in order for it to exist, its existence must outweigh its nothingness so we'd need a cause to preponderate the universe into existence, that cause must be necessary.
up until this point, do you accept that whatever is contingent needs a necessary cause to preponderate its existence?
Saying: "god did it." Is exactly the same as making up an answer.
With a very noticeable lack of evidence for god, (any god,) the god idea is just that, an idea. Without evidence to back an idea, the idea of god is the same as any other unsupported idea, the only difference being, perhaps the amount of people that believe in an unsupported idea compared to another.
Also, when we are talking "before" the universe, (if this ever was the case.) The rules of this universe like: "whatever is contingent i.e cannot be justified/explained through itself, needs a necessary cause to explain it" The rules of this universe no longer applies.
If there was a "before" throw out the physics book, throw out everything we know, none of the rules apply. The rule of "no uncaused causes" no longer necessarily applies.
Which is why the best answer is: "We do not know."
Using a: "we do not know" to support another, unsupported idea, is about the worse answer you can give.
i did not insert the word 'god' in the comment. i just said there must be a necessary cause and stopped right there.
There is a rational rule stating that "whatever has the same cause, has the same judgment" i am not sure if i have interpreted it in an accurate way, but i'll explain what it means
when i say a contingent being needs a cause for its existence. that judgement 'needs a cause' is based on analyzing the essence of that thing, so that essence is the cause that made me predicate that judge upon it. so whenever i come across anything that has the same essence, it must have the same judgement which was originated based on this essence in the first place.
so you cannot say the universe is contingent but doesn't have a cause, For your irrelevant-before-after thing.
so that judgement is supported not like you say.
Oh geez, "outweigh"? In what dimension/units? Bullshit detector at 75%!
why did u take it literally? i just meant that the universe could not have been existed since its essence is neutral to its both sides, so in order for it to exist, so its existence side must be preponderated over its nothingness
I don't understand that question.
---------------------------------
Changing the word outweigh for preponderate; does not fix the problem. Both indicate that one magnitude is larger than another. Since there is no obvious way to get these magnitudes, and you have not outlined a method; you have set yourself up to dictate to us---completely by fiat---which is greater and which is lesser. This is NOT recipe that is going to convince anyone who doesn't already accept your conclusions.
a choice of getting married, in itself, can be made and can not be made, so it's neutral to both sides, so it's contingent upon you.
when you are married, one must conclude that you have preponderated one side over another.
any event, in itself, has two possibilities; either it would occur or not. so its occurrence is contingent upon something else outside its essence. and i'm just calling the state of the occurrence of one side instead of the other 'preponderance'. what is the problem with that?
the same goes for the universe, in itself, it might exist or not. so when it exists, i call that state 'preponderance'. doesn't see any problem from a rational angle.
so when i say outweigh/preponderate i just mean that a one side of a thing just happened to be the case while it could have not been, regardless that side is a measurable quantity or not.
Peripatetic
What would be a necessary cause? Would a god be a necessary cause? If a god is the cause, then provide evidence a god is real.
you didn't answer my question. Do you accept that there is a necessary cause that caused the universe to exist? if you don't, then i would like to know why. if you do, then i would answer your question.
Humans don't know what caused the universe to exist. We don't know what existed before the universe. I don't know if there is a necessary cause. Now I'll ask again, is god a necessary cause? If god is cause of the universe, then provide evidence that god is real.
you don't know what humans know and what they don't. and i haven't uttered a word about what might that cause be. all i said is that there is a necessary cause. Now, Do you accept that the universe has a cause as i demonstrated?
You haven't stated what the cause is or was. We don't know what existed before the big bang.
"You haven't stated what the cause is or was" Do you understand what i'm saying? yeah i know that i haven't, i did not say that i have.
i just argued that;
- the universe is contingent
- whatever is contingent has a cause
- therefore, the universe has a cause
do you accept the conclusion from these premises? if you don't, then why?
Pages