the Fallacy of the uncaused cause: are the logicians here wrong?

Question

It is certainly a fallacy: you may as well argue that, since all roads lead somewhere, therefore there must be some single place to which all roads lead---ROME, no doubt!

We know Aquinas was in error, he was long before Isaac Newton;
and Newton killed it off. Because Way one of Aquinas takes as it's premise the proposition that everything that moves is moved by something else, and is dependent upon the now discredited physics of Aristotle. So, what is Newtons first law? ........"every body continues in it's state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it" From this vantage point we can see that there is no necessity or warant for the principle that "everything which moves is moved by something else"


And so we have had a look at Maimonides and this was just a side trip.

Answer 1

I'll take a crack at answering this, but I may be misinterpreting what you call here an "uncaused cause".

I'm going to guess that what you are questioning is the seeming infinite chain of causality. If all things have a cause, then the so-called first cause must also have a cause, which goes on ad infinitum and so into absurdity (seemingly). I'll set up some concepts first to see if I can provide a guide to a possible answer.

There are two things you have to be VERY careful to define when talking about causes. One is the our temporal and spatial confinement to the mortal world and the second is what is the system you are calling the universe or that which is the consequence to these causes, the causal universe.

Causes tend to be looked at one of two ways, as pure mental logic, having almost no temporal or spatial boundaries, or as physical, such as science describing our physical universe. Notice there is a large line of differing limitations and requirements there.

Let me give a simple example of the above notes having importance.

1) Can a cause create, destroy, or suspend time?

Take the example of the Big Bang. Geometrically everything when rewound would take all of space and all energy to a infinitesemally small point, one that eventually has no space and time. It can have no space because the smallest location is not even a geometric point, what would we map the size and location to , the universe map isn't there to map to? Time? How would we measure time using hands, or clocks, or atomic vibrations with no way to measure the movement of such hands or vibrations? Yet this same "impossible non-existent point" has all the information coded into it to create a physical and temporal universe, the one we live in. Hmm.

2) In Thermodynamics there is the idea of systems. Systems are like black boxes, they are defined by boundaries and rules. Likewise, Differential Equations (a branch of mathematics) often discusses Boundary Values, and these have limits that define them, much as functions and equations do. In order to find exact answers, rather than just the general form of the answers, we need to enter the boundary values. A very simple example is that we may know something has a parabolic trajectory, but if we know its starting speed and angle, the gravity and forces acting upon it in exact quantity at one point, we can compute the exact total trajectory or path.

Back to systems and thermodynamics now. Thermo might suggest that within a system all energy is conserved, unless energy from OUTSIDE the system is either injected or siphoned off. The question then becomes is there another system around the inner system (box), how do they interact ... and more germane to your question ... how can we if inside the smaller box detect or know about the larger box.

I believe one rule states that if you can detect or even surmise the outer box, then you can deduct certain rules to the inner box, such as if it last forever or implode, if it will conserve energy, etc etc.

I'm not going to attempt to remember all that and describe it to you. I will simply suggest the following.

There is a tendency for mortal men to often wish to be intellectual or intelligentsia. They assume that all other men are fools, but that they themselves are smart. A non sequitor already to men of less arrogance, but they are blind to it. These same men fail to see how miss things because they purposefully ignore their own motivations.

If you delve into defining the systems involved, and look along the paths of causality and whether or not it can turn on or off time, you will begin to see what Aquinas truly meant, and how men are really in the image of God, but not yet God. Or you will at least have a more interesting journey in proving the opposite, or remain in permanent wonder of all the possibilities.

Mortal men can imagine other universes, yet they are contained within one. Their mathematics, is either a recognition of an arcane but always self-evident truth, or it is an unproven tool that just simply works and cannot be explained.

I would say that the Big Bang created space, matter, and energy, that from one other or larger system, where the creative force was, by sheer will and a desire to share/create the experience, time and space were created, and either energy was injected into it or also created to power this new system. But it's at a boundary value point, and the two systems will have some rules for that interface, but the equations for each system may be totally independent.

Speed is distance divided by time. Take time to zero and your speed is infinite, distance irrelevant, and if you could live in such a precursor system, you'd be omniscient -- everywhere at everytime as time is only one time. You'd also be as undefined in the speed attribute to a mortal man as his math suggests.

You'd also be immortal.

But in the temporal and spatial world, men are only an image of that. We can imagine all sorts of things we've never seen. We live in the past through our memories, we live in the present through are executed actions, we live in the future through our plans, dreams, hopes, desires. Yet never would any complete sentient human ever claim to simply be able to live fully without living in all three realms at one time, as I've already described (in a poetic sense, at least).

So we live phantomly at least in all times and all locations, if only by the power of our imagination, our memories, our plans, hopes, dreams, desires. We love and create via the choices and will to enact them.

In that way we are like the "first cause". Thermodynamics might suggest that means something, if you count that as the outside box injecting something into this one, and if you accept that it also means we have some sense of the outer box we should be unable to experience , detect, or know.

That's why I suggest exploring the avenues above that I have poorly and hurriedly described. I once knew how to describe them much better, but as became satisfied more and more with the value of those answers, my worries diminished and proof became less important to me. To seekers proof is important because it is the recognition of what we seek. We are never truly lost them. But to those still seeking they may feel lost in the interim, and so understandably proof is important.

It is both fair to say that I am just a humble fool ... but it is also just as true to say, if interpreted correctly, that proof is for fools, or seems foolish once you have found it, as it was all around you all the time. Beauty is truth and truth beauty, just as a lamb once found, and a promised land made home are. It's just a matter of getting there and seeing you never were lost, but always at home.

I wish you well.

Answer 2

Quantum Mechanics says that reality is full of uncaused causes (the 'quantum foam')... That, in fact, existence itself is probabilistic rather than deterministic. The Casimir Effect seems to support this view. So, the notion of an uncaused cause being the person of a deity is untenable.

Answer 3

Do you have a doctors appointment this morning? If not perhaps you should consider the need of one for yourself.
This is goobley **** and I hope this is not the way your brain is working today. If it is you should consider my suggestion about medical help and maybe get a little more sleep and not read so much late at night and get up too early the next day.
You need to take better care of yourself

Answer 4

newton didn't kill anything off. nothing is discredited. you're talking about matters of opinion.

Answer 5

That pink lemonaid stuff can't be beat. Give it a try.

Answer 6

You should drink pink lemonade.

Answer 7

I like pancakes.

Answer 8

yup

Answer 9

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz