-1

I noticed a problem with using the principle of causality to prove the existence of the first cause: if we accept that at the beginning of the causal chain, first cause is nothing but an effect.

At the end of the causal chain, there are also creatures that cause nothing, have no effect, do not affect the senses, do not affect the sensors. You can't even think of them because they don't affect the brain, which seems to be a contradiction.

The quantum problems of causality are not discussed.

5
  • Such proofs do not accept that God is the cause of nothing. They accept the opposite - that he is the cause everything including himself, causa sui. The rest is hard to understand. How are our brains and sensors relevant? Who "thought"? What seems to be a contradiction?
    – Conifold
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 1:35
  • Trying to figure out your question, but the concept of the "observable universe" might help? The thing's that, according to modern theory, what's outside of the observable universe's light cone exists only hypothetically.
    – Nat
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:33
  • @Nat : Notice that these creatures are not only invisible to us, they cannot even be thought of for a moment
    – dt128
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 11:06
  • What creatures are you talking about?
    – Joachim
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 17:59
  • @Joachim: These beings are part of the causal chain, so they must be part of the real world, but consider that they are inconsistent, that is, in the course of a proof, we have reached the incompatibility of the causality principle with their incompatibility.
    – dt128
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 18:26

1 Answer 1

0

I noticed a problem with using the principle of causality to prove God: if we accept that at the beginning of the causal chain, God is nothing but an effect.

Which God, though?

I mean, if you say that God exists, where "God" refers to the universe itself, the forces of nature, or something like that, then, yeah, God exists!

But it's equivocation to say that a different notion of God exists because that notion of God exists.


This is a separate topic:

At the end of the causal chain, there are also creatures that cause nothing, have no effect, do not affect the senses, do not affect the sensors,You can't even think of them because they don't affect the brain, which seems to be a contradiction.

Imagine these things:

  1. A magical pink unicorn which, by definition, can't interact with anything at all, ever. If you ever see or somehow detect the existence of a magical pink unicorn, then that'd be a different one, because the one I'm talking about can't be detected.

  2. Now imagine a different magical pink unicorn that also can't interact with anything at all, ever, including with the first one.

  3. Now imagine a third magical pink unicorn that also can't interact with anything at all, ever, including either of the prior two. Except this one's got a hat too – it and its hat can interact with each other, but neither can interact with anything else.

Scientists say that theories are correct if they make accurate predictions, and they're wrong if they make inaccurate predictions. So is the theory of the existence of these unicorns right or wrong?

The thing's that it doesn't matter. You can believe that they exist, or don't exist; either way, it doesn't actually mean anything. For example, a believer and non-believer will never disagree about anything in the entire universe on the basis of their belief/non-belief.

Anyway, my point's that, when you say

At the end of the causal chain, there are also creatures that cause nothing, have no effect, do not affect the senses, do not affect the sensors,You can't even think of them because they don't affect the brain, which seems to be a contradiction.

, yeah.. we can posit things that have no material consequence to the universe, then, without contradiction, say that they do or don't exist – despite those two statements seeming contradictory.

If it helps, consider Alice and Bob's positions:

  1. Alice looks into an empty room, then says, "Everyone in that room prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream.".

  2. Bob looks into the same empty room, then says, "Everyone in that room prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream.".

Those sound like direct contradictions, but do Alice and Bob actually disagree about anything?

5
  • God in the term of frist cause
    – dt128
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:07
  • @alwaystudent: Does the update address what you were trying to ask about?
    – Nat
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:29
  • According to the principle of causality, consider the things of the real world as a set of causes and effects
    – dt128
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:42
  • @alwaystudent: Sure, that's an easy thing to do. Though I don't see how it's an answer to my question?
    – Nat
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:48
  • this is Your answer to my question , please answer with out metaphors,
    – dt128
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 6:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .