absolutely! I have to apologize for taking a long time to respond. I didn't receive an email notifying me that you responded. I figured I convinced you and you were meditating, or you lost interest altogether. I lost patience and I came to ask where you were only to find out that I'm six days late. I'll repost my last comment on your blog on the immovable mover page.

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...

Lol thanks :). How many is that now?

No I haven't. I'll check it out.

Oh well have you read "A manual for creating atheists"? I bet they compliment each other. I'll be reading yours.

Lol no. I just think it's excellent. I can see why you'd wonder that since I am pushing it and I said my book. I meant my copy of that book.

You're the author of that book?

I don't think I am making that assumption. I was just pointing out that the book agrees with you that many debates go nowhere like you said.

I honestly haven't been able to see how the two types of actions you've listed are relevant so I haven't really addressed it. It never occurred to me to ask why you think it's relevant. Here are my thoughts, though. The two types are not ruled by separate laws of causality, so why make the distinction? The same causal law produces many categories of types of actions, not just purposeful and non-purposeful. E.g., there is also the types: living actions and non-living actions. Or the types: magnetic actions and non-magnetic actions. Etc. why is purposeful and non-purposeful so crucial?

Also, I'm not just saying that we haven't experienced a causeless cause -- the silent argument. I'm saying every cause we have experienced is caused and an un-caused cause is a contradiction in terms. If true, this is enough to necessitate the generalization: there is no such thing as a un-caused cause. We can honestly say every action we observe is caused -- even if we don't know what caused it. And here's the contradiction... The un-caused cause, if it is to cause anything physically, would need to physically exist to affect physical objects, but then it being physical would itself be subjected to physical causes -- it can't be un-caused. The un-caused cause, if it is not to be caused, would need to be non-physical to escape from being subjected to physical causes, but then it being non-physical wouldn't be able to affect any physical objects -- it can't cause. Any attempts to include a first cause (i.e., an un-caused cause) in the picture would require an entity that apparently exists outside of the law of causality -- i.e., a non-physical entity affecting physical objects, or a physical entity impervious to causality -- and therefore, an entity that exists outside the law of identity. This attempt seems to plant us in the realm of the irrational.

If you agree that an un-caused cause is a contradiction, then how do we remedy the apparently irrational and this: "...or else He wasn’t the original actor, and we must begin the whole process over again until we arrive at an original actor who IS eternal." ? In short, we must accept on rational grounds, with the threat of accepting a contradiction if we don't, that there is no first cause (or un-caused cause).

Unfortunately, parts of your last paragraph didn't make much sense to me.

"Gravity requires at least two bodies..." Check, at least two things that produce gravity exist. Check and check.

"...but how did those things get into those positions to begin with?" This is where you loose me. I'm not sure how this is relevant. We know at least two things exist today, and they must have existed yesterday.

"Either they and gravity are all eternal, in which case they never would have been separate,..." There are other forces at play (i.e., weak and strong nuclear forces) that are just as fundamental to the physical objects as gravity is. These other forces would resist gravitational forces. I only listed one of the forces that's always present to demonstrate that physical entities always act.

Gravity may not solve all problems, but it (and the other forces) solves the problem of figuring out whether or not physical objects always act. They do. They must. If you don't think so, do you mind clarifying why you don't think so? What evidence are you referencing to make your rational judgement?

“What caused the first cause?” By definition, nothing, in one sense. The fact that we have never experienced a causeless action is an empirical argument from silence. However, if you were to say that a causeless action is logically impossible (meaning that action must arise from something with a sufficient nature in a sufficient context to allow that action), then you would be absolutely correct. But then, here we must distinguish between types of causes. The first type of cause being considered is automatic, material, cause and effect. The other type of cause (the one behind the “First Cause” is the conscious value and volition of the actor. I suppose, then, you may ask “what caused these things (the consciosness, value, and volition of the actor) and the answer to that really is nothing -- in all senses. The original actor’s consciousness, values, and volition must be eternal -- or else He wasn’t the original actor, and we must begin the whole process over again until we arrive at an original actor who IS eternal. All of that to say: there must be an eternal conscious actor with unchanging and unchangeable value and volition.

Now, regarding your suggestion about matter, energy, and gravity. Gravity is the closes example you can come to of accidental action which could seemingly go back to infinity -- but it doesn’t work. Gravity requires at least two bodies to be in certain proximity to each other (with some distance between them), but how did those things get into those positions to begin with? Either they and gravity are all eternal, in which case they never would have been separate, or they arrived there by means of some prior action. So, gravity doesn’t really solve the problem. It still requires prior action -- which must have either been accidental or purposeful. The argument still stands.

I was referencing my atheism: the case against god book and this made me think of you:

"In order fully to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict, one must grasp the fundamental difference that give rise to the conflict. One must investigate the basic issue and apply this knowledge to the disputed issue.

"A debated subject is often a symptom, a surface manifestation, of a more basic underlying disagreement. Unless this area is explored -- and unless some agreement is reached -- the conflict will continue, while becoming repetitious and dull. The result is a kind of "intellectual atrophy," where the argument proceeds without significant progress, where no new material is introduced, and where the participants know beforehand that neither side will convince the other." -- A:TCAG

Hallelujah, we've found the kernel (I think). I say things that exist necessarily act, you say they don't necessarily act. This is the contradiction to be resolve before we can make further progress.

In support of your position I see you essentially say existence exists but may not necessarily be acting and it's quite the (unfounded) leap to suggest that they do necessarily act. (Continuing from you) Nothing supports the idea that the things that exist necessarily act. (From you, in summary) It makes no sense to say that things may exist in the past to eternity and act unless one of those things act first to set it all off.

This is were we meet at our first cause disagreement.

Before I go on to support my position, let me "poke at a holes" that I see, if you don't mind. What caused the first causer? Does it make sense that any cause (purposeful or not) to be isolated from previous causes? Every cause we know of (purposeful or not) is the product of causes as far as we know, is it not? If not, then please give me an example. All the examples I can think of are caused by something, or it's undetermined due to lack of information.

My position is that the things that physically exist necessarily act. To give one example -- and what I believe is a sufficient example to prove this -- the things that physically exist (purposeful or not) are made up of matter/energy. Matter/energy is the un-purposeful cause of gravitational distortions in space in every direction at all distances -- a force that can be observed and measured. You cannot separate physical entities from this act -- it is part of their nature at all times. To conclude that physical things don't necessarily act would require one to separate the thing that exists from its nature.

Do we make progress from here or is the kernel somewhere else?

" If so, there cannot be a first cause problem if something always existed, even if the same things don't always exist -- so long as something exists they act.”

The problem is not whether the same things have always existed or whether different things have always been in existence. The problem that you seem to be missing is: the nature of those things. “so long as something exists they act”. But existence does not automatically equal action. As covered in my argument, there are two types of existents in respect to action: those which can only act accidentally, and those which can act purposely. Suppose there are things which can only act accidentally which existed in ‘eternity past’ -- there would have never been any action among them apart from an original purposeful action.

We both agree on the eternality of existence, but that in no way demands the eternality of action -- and it certainly does not demand the eternality of accidental action. That last (eternal accidental action) is a contradiction in terms.

Regarding the rest about matter and energy, it is an interesting discussion, but it does not add anything to the essentials of the philosophical discussion we are having, so I'd rather leave it as it would inevitably become a rabbit trail.

We can have a good discussion too, if you change your mind.

Thank you, apology accepted.

It seems the kernel or source of our disagreement is deeper than either of us thought -- let's keep digging.

I understand you to mean that something always existed but not necessarily the things that exist today. Things that exist today were caused by things that existed before, which you say is obviously evident. If the evidence necessitates that this is true then my statement that the stuff that exists is eternal would be false, which seems to be the crux leading to the logical conclusion that there is no first cause/action problem. I think that by removing this crux the first cause/action problem actually vanishes again. The first cause/action problem would be eliminated by this new line of logical thinking: something (not necessarily the same thing) will always exist, so causes/actions would still be eternal since something (again, not necessarily the same thing) that causes and acts will always be there, would it not? If so, there cannot be a first cause problem if something always existed, even if the same things don't always exist -- so long as something exists they act.

I want to challenge this notion: the axiom of existence doesn't mean that the things that exist today necessarily existed prior to today. My logical series in my last post relies on this notion to be false. What is existence as such besides the things that which exist? Without the things that exist, there is nothing that exists and the concept of existence or existence as such is meaningless. Additionally, how do you overcome the seemingly absurd idea that nothing can be caused to be something? If nothing is a zero, then how does anything cause a zero to do anything? What is it that you're causing to act? Within that same vein, how do you turn something into a zero? Where would that something go? You can't interchange a zero with something and here's why. Science has demonstrated a law of nature explaining this relationship between something and a zero: matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. The matter/energy that exists today has always existed, though it's forms may change. E (energy) cannot and does not equal zero, which would be necessary if you could turn something into nothing; it equals mc^2. The USA has demonstrated this conservation of mass/energy relationship very thoroughly in Japan near the end of WWII with two bombs.

But you say everything that exists is eternal is obviously false. I wonder what observation you see that makes you think that this is obvious, and I thought perhaps you mean something like life. It is true that life exists and is created and destroyed all the time. The life that is you or me may be destroyed under the right conditions and we each may create life under the right conditions. So in a sense, it's true -- everything that exists is not eternal. That was not the sense I meant, however, when I said "the stuff that exists..." I meant all the physical stuff that makes up all the physical entities (living or non-living) is eternal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you disagreeing with that last statement.

So within that sense of existence, do you still think I made an error in stating that a first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence... with all the rest that follows (it may require a reread)? If you still do, then I wonder where do you see room for a first cause problem? What did I miss?

I apologize. I did not mean to give offense. I was mostly referring to the argument as evaseive -- not necessarily yourself. I have run into many Objectivists who were very evasive using similar argumentation.

The above has made it clear that you have followed my reasoning rather well -- though not in the way I would put it.
You are correct that I take the 'generalization' to be true based on the (logical) necessity of it. And this is in part due to the idea of a first cause/action.

I think you are mistaken here:
"A first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence... The axiom of existence eliminates a first cause because existence is eternal, so the stuff that exists is eternal, so their actions are eternal, so there is no first action by definition of them being eternal."

The axiom of existence means that existence, as such, is eternal; that something has always existed. It does not follow that everything which exists is eternal (this is obviously false) or that every action of any existent is eternal (this is also obviously false).

All that can be concluded from the axiom of existence is that there has never been non-existence. It does not say or imply anything about the action(s) of particular existents.

In fact, a bit of a topic changer, but I would challenge the Objectivist here:
You say "existence exists" (i.e. is eternal). I ask "WHICH existent?". ;) But that is more of a beginning to an ontological proof for the existence of God. For now, I'd rather stick to the cosmological -- which I think has been shown to withstand your latest objection of being contrary to the axiom of existence.

Could you stop accusing me of evasion? I would appreciate it very much. It's distracting since it's false and accusing me of evasion is not helping you explain yourself any better.

I am not refusing to think. I happen to simply disagree with you about the nature of actions for reasons I think are valid. I'm looking for the error (the contradiction) if I made one, and I expect that you're doing the same if you made one. We can assist each other in identifying the error. I currently don't see mine, if I made one, and you currently don't see yours, if you made one. This is not evasion. It's a process necessary to correct an error.

Continuing on with the productive side of our discussion. I believe you're making an error of circular reasoning. Essentially, I hear you say purposeful action must come first. Why? Because un-purposeful action requires purposeful actions to initiate it. Why? Because purposeful action must come first. Why? Ect.

So I asked myself if you're not relying on a circular reasoning, then what is it that you observed that breaks this loop? I see you discuss the nature of actions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you essentially generalize that all chains of consequences could be followed back to the purposeful initiation of action. This can be observed by following some un-purposeful actions back to purposeful action, but not all -- some we just don't know. I think that this generalization is invalid because given the data, it's not necessary -- i.e., it's inconclusive. For any generalization to be valid it must be necessary.

So assuming that you think the above generalization is necessary, I asked myself why do you think it? Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you disagreeing with the fact that we can't trace all accidental actions back through history. So then I thought, to force this generalization to be necessary, one could assume a first cause. If there is a first cause, then a first accidental action must be ruled out since an inanimate entity by its nature cannot initiate action. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you imply a first cause by seeking a first action. If I'm correct so far, then I found the error. A first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence. If the axiom of existence eliminates the possibility of a first action, then the problem of finding a first action and actor disappears.

The axiom of existence eliminates a first cause because existence is eternal, so the stuff that exists is eternal, so their actions are eternal, so there is no first action by definition of them being eternal.

If you think I'm still wrong at this point, the question that remains for me is: Why do you think a first action (regardless of the type of entity that made it) is possible, necessary, and logically consistent with the axiom of existence?

"What makes you think that the former coming first is impossible?"

The exact reasons I listed above -- which you re-stated quite well:
"it's necessary for purposeful action to cause un-purposeful action, otherwise, the later wouldn't exist."

Yes, "existence is eternal" -- but that does not mean that every existent and every type of action available to all existents is eternal.

"So where do you see an error in my five steps leading to the conclusion that an unbounded set of un-purposeful action is possible?"

The error (or rather evasion) is in 2). Existents have particular types of natures in respect to action (as has been thoroughly covered), and to drop the context of those particular types of natures in a discussion which hinges upon those very natures is evasive.

Bingo -- only don't read into that "an original consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness" (The fallacy of The Primacy of Consciousness).
There had to be an original existent which was conscious.

So where do you see an error in my five steps leading to the conclusion that an unbounded set of un-purposeful action is possible?

You say (essentially) it's necessary for purposeful action to cause un-purposeful action, otherwise, the later wouldn't exist. What makes you think that the former coming first is necessary? According to my five steps, no first action of any kind is necessary or possible -- existence is eternal.

So purposeful action requires a consciousness, and accidental action requires consciousness, so there had to be an original consciousness?