First Effect
Offline This is just a little thinking (the only type of which I'm capable) I've been doing about the first cause argument lately. I realize that many objections to this argument exist, but I thought I would look at it from a different perspective, or at least one that is different from any way I have seen the argument approached before.
In the first cause argument, theists often argue that in order for anything to exist there must be a first cause, or a cause from which all other cause and effect relationships stem. If there were not a first cause then there would either be nothing or we would be left with an infinite regression of cause and effect relationships which could never be traversed, from the infinite past to the moment of the universes coming into existence, in order to bring about our present state of the universe existing. Not arguing against the idea that everything necessarilly must be caused, or relying on multi-verse theories, or even pointing out that requiring any particular possible first cause is the actual first cause is special pleading, I have another problem with this line of thinking.
The problem with this line of thinking, as I have been considering it lately, is that it only looks at one side of the cause effect relationship as necessary. In other words, though it requires that there must necessarily be a first cause, it never considers that there must be a first effect. The theist might claim that the universe is the first effect, but this uses the term effect in a non-sensical manner. An effect is a caused change. In order for there to be an effect there must be something that is being affected. Just as nothing causes nothing, an effect on nothing is nothing. So, if one is to posit a first cause, they also must posit a first effected subject. This leads to something else pre-existing the universe aside from the cause (god) which then requires an explanation for its existence. Its existence can not be attributed to god as we then fall back into the same objection. Comments?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
If you don't mind me putting aside apologetics textbook arguments which attempt to infer a god type entity directly from the notion of big bang I have something to say in reply.
In terms which I would be more inclined to call strict judeo christian grandfather story theology the universe is not stated as the first effect.
The beginning of the book of genesis posits a void with some reflecting property described as a stirring or rippling sort of effect the "spirit of God" floats on this "movement" over the void. The next line is God says Let light be. From this we could infer that the first effect intended to be described in the story is 'light' rather than the universe.
(A fluid-like rippling void suddenly emitting photons is a plausible beginning of the universe, but this actually has very little to do with what you're originally discussing so I won't go into that I just wanted to point out that the first effect would be light.)
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You can never effect "nothing," if you define "an effect on nothing" as "changing what nothing is." Nothing is an ~"absence of anything." Definitively, it cannot be affected; however, in this "first effect" scenario we are not "affecting nothing" but "affecting a state of nothingness." If there is a "state of nothingness"--as I believe we are talking about in this case--certainly that state can be "affected." The "first effect" would merely be, framed one way, "an effect on the state of nothingness."
That argument seems to be one of pure framing of the issue.. not sure.
First, I am unsure on the validity of drawing some differentiation between "nothing" and "a state of nothingness". If "a state of nothingness" is not "nothing" then what is it? A state of nothingness can't be something. Anyway, use "nothing" or "state of nothingness" interchangably or use whichever you prefer as it doesn't really effect what I'm saying.
The problem is that the theist employing this argument is arguing from our understanding of causation which is a cause-effect relationship, not simply a cause. What the theist does is attempt to stress that "everything needs a cause" while ignoring that part of the cause-effect relationship, from which they get this argument, that also requires that there is something being effected. If we remove the thing being effected from the cause effect relationship it is just as impotent as it is if we attempt to remove the cause but leave the effect.
When I saw X causes the effect Y, it requires that Y is an effect on or to something; X causes effect Y on Z. Effects don't exist in a vaccum. To say Z is nothing or even a "state of nothingness" makes no more sense than to say that X is nothing or a "state of nothingness". The concept of causation is being only partially employed in order to make it fit a desired position but the concept from which the argument is derived is rendered incoherent by doing this.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I think you are misunderstanding my point.
When I used "state of nothingness" as opposed to "nothing" it was merely to point out what is actually be "affected."
This "theistic first effect" would not be "affecting nothing" it would be "affecting a state."
Whether that state is "something" or "nothing" doesn't really matter.
X causes effect +1 on 0. I'm not "affecting" 0, I'm certainly change the "state" or the "sum total."
Another way.. and I don't mean to overcomplicate.. perhaps my argument is misguided, but consider this:
IF, at point A1, state = nothing. At point A2, state = something.
The "effect" would be "state(nothing) -> state(something)."
What caused this "effect" is a completely different matter.
You seem to be framing the question so that one accepts the premise that "effects can only happen when there is something." Something being defined as something material. I am countering, by merely saying that "cause/effect," to me, speaks to a relationship between two point in time. If temporal point A is different then temporal point B, then their must have necessarily been a cause for the change and the "change" is an effect.
Hmm..
But in order to state the "state of nothingness" is being "affected" you must grant the state of nothingness the status of being "something". Once this is done, we have equal rights to claim the state of nothingness can be a cause.
A state is something. If a state can be affected why can't it be a cause? If this were the scenario then we would be saying that the cause acted upon the state of nothingness to bring about effect X. How does a cause act upon a state of nothingness?
If it is a state it necessarily is something.
But 0 is something. 0 is a concept. We are not discussing having an effect on the concept of nothing, but if a cause can effect nothing or the state of nothingness.
But what is being affected? You said what the effect is but not what is being affected. If there could be an effect on nothing then, yes, but it is no different than saying if at point A there is nothing and at point B there is something then nothing can be the cause. If it were true that a cause could have an effect on nothing then it would be true that a cause can have an effect on nothing just as if it is true that nothing can cause something then it is true that nothing can cause something. But this is not what our concept of causation would lead us to believe. Why require we stick to the concept of causation in requiring a cause but not stick to it requiring that there be a subject upon which the cause acts for there to be an effect? If a state of nothingness can not cause, why can it be affected?
What caused it is a different matter, but that something is required as a cause is not.
Because that is what we get from causation in the same way we say that "causes can only happen when there is something".
Material or immaterial (whatever that is) just like the cause is defined.
Causation can only exist in time it seems (this leads to other objections not relevant here) but causation is not simply a relation between points in time. Just as there needs to be an existant thing causing there needs to be an existant thing being effected.
The change is the effect but it needs to be an effect on something.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Nothingness doesn't exist. If it existed it wouldn't be nothingness. If you allow the existence of nothingness (lack of everything?) this is the same as allowing the existence of the supernatural (lack of the natural?) and by extension the existence of god.
My Artwork
You know, Rhad, maybe I'm phrasing this badly. When I read back through both of our posts I realize that I am using the term "cause" fairly poorly. I will try to reword.
In order for there to be an effect producing cause there must be interaction between the causer and a subject upon which it acts to produce an effect. If the causer acts upon nothing, then the effect will be nothing. An effect can not be produced unless the causer acts upon a subject thereby causing some effect. Without a subject on which to act, the effect the causer can cause will be nothing. Something can't come from nothing, if true, is no more evidenced by causation then something can not produce an effect by interacting with nothing is evidenced by causation.
If a ball exists in a void, then it can not be a cause of anything as there is nothing for it to interact with to produce an effect. Even if we make the ball infinite, conscious and all powerful it still does not change the fact that without anything with which to interact it cannot produce any effect.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Tie this:
...together with this:
I was assuming that in this hypothetical, there was God + "state of nothingness."
It seems that you are confusing my argument with one that states "a state of nothingness can change itself into something else."
Not the case.. not what I am arguing. I am arguing a "state" can be changed from nothing->something. "Nothing" as wavefreak points out, can't really be "nothing." I was presuming, I didn't not make it clear because I thought it was accepted for the sake of argument, that God existed along with this "state of nothingness."
If I'm looking at an empty bowl.. that bowl contains nothing. I spit in it. It now contains something.
That would be more analogous to my argument then one which states:
I'm looking into the bowl. It contains nothing. I will not wait for the nothing to "be affected" so as to be something other than nothing.
I have a question...
Why do we care if it's infinite regress?
The believer cares because it implies that their god is not "all that", but we just don't know and as far as we can tell it is infinite regress. That is to say, that we don't know where it could have all started, and likely never will.
We don't need to answer that question to be devoid of god because quite simply, applying the same rules eliminates god being a god but rahter just a product of something.
Alright.. maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. IT is entirely possible. Let me just reiterate a point I made a moment ago.. if insufficient, then--I will submit, until such a time that either you or I understand one another better on this argument.
Your analogy posits a ball existing in a void, thereby, being incapable of causing anything.
To use your analogy to try and reiterate my point that this is just a matter of rheotorical framing:
If the ball is conscious and exists in the void, yet the "void" is still considered a "state of nothing." Then that ball could merely cut off a piece of itself, throw it into the "state of nothing," thereby making the "state with/of nothing" a "state with/of something."
This would be, technically, IMO, causing an effect on the "state of the void." Or, simply, causing an effect.
Um, but just to make sure I make my personal opinion clear. I don't find the "infinite regress" argument particularly compelling--although, it makes sense to me. I just don't think it particularly important with regards to the comparative review of theism and other worldviews.
umm.... there never was a beginning / nothing, there will never be an ending / nothing.
, all of what we see and concieve is a tiny atomic speck of the eternal or infinity.
, that's my dumb guess, - no beginning , no end , yeah hard to imagine ? .....
, of course I am just being practical
, the first verse of the Tao is cool bright ancient wisdom.
, and old Aristotle was all over this ancient question, "first mover" ???Aristotle wrote; "There is something moving.
Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
Therefore, there must be a first mover." ( which is god )
Wrong no not, depending on what you mean by GOD. If I'm wrong will I go to hell ? ( no )
GEEZZZ even google will never know infinity, so now what? , Buddha said ahh fuck, who cares !
What am I ? I am god as you .... god don't know !
This stuff makes some heavy googlin .... don't go crazy, trust god .... help god .... kill religion for god sakes .....
so what makes sense ?????? I really hate these questions ..... does ZERO exist !
Atheism Books.
But if the ball cut off a piece (what it used to cut a piece off is also a relevant question) of itself then there would be something else existing aside from the ball, a piece of the ball, upon which the ball could act to produce an effect. It is not acting upon the void to produce an effect but acting upon "some thing other than itself" to produce an effect.
If a god cut off a piece of himself and caused it to become the universe, or acted upon it creating the effect of producing the universe from that piece of himself, he is acting on something. There is something other than god existing, the piece of what was once a part of the god, by which god can then cause the universe to exist.
And that's fine. But when causation is cited as pointing to a god because something can not come from nothing the argument ignores that something can not cause something without something upon which to act which seems to me to be equally true from causation. So if one is going to argue that every effect must have a cause it seems to me they should be equally held to the statement that something can not cause something from nothing. So it seems that a causer alone is not sufficient, but there needs to be something with which the causer can interact to produce an effect. If one states that such a thing is not necessary then they are suggesting some form of causation we are unfamiliar with and therefor they call into question the basis for their claim that every effect needs a cause.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins