Cosmological Argument
This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is:
“because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will ended to the earliest of something” (cosmological argument)
Where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on “the consequences of infinity”, and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.
A Causal Chain
If there is new creation or new function, then:
- From current function we can trace back to previous function. This asserts causal chain. Whether previously couldn’t be considered as definite sequence for current function, but still we can trace to previous moment.
- And whether previously there was only a changing to current state rather than a new creation, then we can still trace back to previous moment of the same thing.
New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause.
Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.
- The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn’t relate to the law of conservation energy.
- And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection).
Infinite Backward
Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences
Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.
- Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That’s one point.
- The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality.
Opposite Direction of Causal Chain
Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current
The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain
Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.
SYLLOGISM
- New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain
- Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)
- Therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause
How do we deal with missing links on cosmological argument?
- We have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it’s not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as “makes sense”, as classical understanding, but, it’s because:
- We have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as “the earliest”.
CONCLUSION
There is Uncaused Cause.
That is, if you believe a causal chain, specifically related to cosmological argument. But if you insist that causal chain is merely a changing of a thing from one moment to different moment (it means you are not going to the past existence, rather than you are going to a previous moment). If that so, then actually all of changing, all of things are merely one thing (as an uncaused cause), or two uncaused causes are the cause of all changing that mostly can be perceived by us.
It’s not about whether my logical structure is illogical or you may consider it doesn’t make senses. But that’s the point, whether you are structuring a causal chain in any possible ways, but finally it will end to the same conclusion that there is uncaused cause.
SECOND ARGUMENT
But if we consider there is no causal chain from currently to the past, in the sense that currently has no relation with previous cause rather that currently is constantly changing of thing, then we need to understand it differently as related to dependency. An axiom should be noted to solve this:
FIXED EXISTENCE
Axiom: something (without additional assertions) can’t transcend beyond something itself.
From one liter water (without additional assertions) can’t be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)
Dependency
If we consider that a thing within another thing, and another thing within another different thing, again and again, it asserts there is thing which part (within) another thing and repeatedly without ending or having an ending.
- This never ending dependencies asserts that all existences are not fixed.
All Existences are Fixed (or aren’t fixed)
- If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.
- Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward), OR …
- All existences are fixed, in the sense that from all things there won’t be possibilities beyond what can be provided by all things itself. If there is infinite regression then there will be possibilities that can’t be provided by all things. It asserts that at least there is possibilities that is coming from nothingness which is impossible. Otherwise, it (possibility) came from “not nothingness” which means it came from all things itself. It asserts, there is no infinite regression.
- But, if all things are infinite regression itself, then we can refer to the first argument (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES).
CONCLUSION
- There is finite regression and it asserts there is Uncaused Cause.
THIRD ARGUMENT
How many uncaused cause(s)?
If, Just if we consider there are many Uncaused Cause(s), then there will be consequences, and let us follow the consequences of it, and see where is it going to?
Uncaused Cause
Several understanding must be asserted to make us to be able to see the whole picture of things, related to this case. And further discussion may be related to this understanding:
- To picture what or how is uncaused cause is not a complete description, but at least we can figure it out for this case. If we can go as far as we can try to any possible directions (places) or to the farthest point, then its farthest boundary (compared to boundaries of its own subsets) is owned by uncaused cause. But if we consider there are two uncaused cause, then the farthest boundary must be ended to a specific uncaused cause, where boundaries of the two uncaused cause(s) are side by side. We can say uncaused cause as space, singularity or whatever, but the point is that it has the farthest boundary (compared to boundaries of its own subsets) on its own.
- Therefore, there is no for a single of a thing (that were actualized) was placed outside any of Uncaused Cause(s). All that were caused are placed inside one of any uncuased cause(s). Why? Because it’s the only not nothingness.
- A thing could be matter, it could be space, it could be singularity or it could be anything, but the essence is that a thing is not nothingness. Whether uncaused cause is singularity or any possible means, but the point is that uncaused cause must be the set with the elements from subset of matters including subset of space or any possible subset inside (within) it.
- We can apply curve of Euler as like this: matters and space being subset of universe, where universe being subset of singularity, and singularity being subset of a thing, or a thing being subset of other thing, and other thing being subset of whatever again and again.
- “effects being subsets of causes”. I will expand it a little bit more to make it clearer., so we can put it properly. If there is a thing and this thing has potentiality to actualize (cause) its possibilities, then various actualization of possibilities of this thing may be considered as the effects. So, i prefer to say that “effects being subset of actualization”, “actualization being subset of possibilities”, “possibilities being subset of a thing” and “a thing being subset of uncaused cause as the set”.
- Two means two of different things. Stating two parts, means both are having discontinuities, disjointed, therefore in between both there is difference. Stating the two became one, is the same as stating that the former to the latter is continuing each other, therefore there is no different in between both that could be a cause of disjointed. Stating one means continuity to the specific extent.
- Examples: Water (a thing) = continuity to the specific extent as a water (a thing); Two waters = two things are separated (disjointed), where each of it has its own continuity to the specific extent as a water; A water became two waters = a continuity to the specific extent as a water was disjointed (separated) became two parts.
Relationship
While we can use curve of Euler to describe how to position in between the set (uncaused cause) and its subset, where subsets are inside the set (uncaused cause). But furthermore, we can’t apply relational as provided by curve of Euler. Why? Because on Set Theory, the term relation in between subsets doesn’t assert whether both subsets are possible to be considered exist or not, rather it asserts that both subsets are grouped of the set.
In the sense that relation in set theory has no compatibility compared to relation in between two different things. It’s because, relation in set theory doesn’t describe how for the two things are respond one to another. For example:
- If we put human closer enough to a fire, then relation on set theory couldn’t explain for these two elements (human and fire) how for both would react one to another. Relation on set theory can only explain that both elements (human and fire) are capable to be placed side by side but there is no further explanation for the consequence of both on specific condition in reality.
- So …, don’t try twisting (understanding) it semantically, theoretically or conceptually, just like: in between two subsets, in between “A” and “B”, in between “1” and “2”, in between these “2” and “>” and “1”, in between symbols. In between variables, etc. But you have to try to see for what is behind it. What is “A” or “B”, What is “1” or “2”, what is “>”, because these have no meaning until we relate it to reality.
- You just have to relate what “A” or “B” is, and see if my argument can be applied here.
(… I consider you already agree that there is uncaused cause, otherwise please refer to this “IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES” or “ALL EXISTENCES ARE FIXED”.
By using previous understanding above, we can continue to discuss about uncaused cause and how to relate it with another understanding, properly. If there is confusion on latter understanding, please revert (back) to previous understanding. Or if you consider still there is no relevant understanding, please notify me through comment, and see if i can assert additional understanding as a bridge in between your confusion. …)
Now, back to my argument …
Firstly
Axiom: something (without additional assertions) can’t transcend beyond something itself
- From one liter water (without additional assertions) can’t be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)
Secondly
For an “Uncaused Cause” is, never coming from another “Uncaused Cause”, therefore between one “Uncaused Cause” and another “Uncaused Cause” there are possibilities:
- There is no distance in between one of them to another, and it asserts many “Uncaused Cause” as one “Uncaused Cause”,
- Or, there is a distance in between one of them to another.
- If there is a distance in between them (Uncaused Causes), then there is a thing separate them. Whether this separator can be considered as “SPACE” or not, but this “space” or not “space” must be “something” or “nothingness”. But nothingness can’t be separator, since it’s nothing, therefore the separator (whatever it is) it must be “a thing”, and therefore (further) it can be tested to see if this understanding can stand when it’s attempted to be connected (reasonably) to the consequences from the other side.
IN REALITY there is always a distance, separator in between two distinct entities
- If there are two distinct entities, whether water and oil, glass and stone, two particles, two hands closer each other, two of things closer each other (no matter how close). Again, whether how close in between the two different things. But there must be a distance in between both. You can relate (examine) it with any kind of scientific facts.
Consequences
Now, we will try to see the consequences of it and we will try to crash in between consequences, to see which one is collapsed and which one still survive, and we will see what is said by “the consequence which can survive”. So we can see the conclusion of it.
If there is a distance in between them (uncaused causes), then there is a thing separate them, or in other words, there is a thing in between them. Whether we consider it’s only a space in between them, but it’s a thing, since if we consider it’s nothingness then it’s impossible for nothingness in between reality, since nothingness has cause for nothing and nothingness is not placed anywhere.
Furthermore, what is a thing in between them? There are several possibilities.
If in between them (uncaused causes):
1) There is “Not Uncaused Cause” (all things that were caused by any of “uncaused cause”), and it indicates that somehow “not uncaused cause” (all things that were caused by any of “uncaused cause”) is placed outside one of any “uncaused cause(s)”, which is impossible, because all of possible of not nothingness are only uncaused cause(s). It asserts that “Not Uncaused Cause” (all things that were caused by any of “Uncaused Cause”) must be placed inside one of any Uncaused Cause(s).
- Therefore there is no “Not Uncaused Cause” (all things that were caused by any of “Uncaused Cause”) in between any of uncaused cause(s).
2) There is “Uncaused Cause” as separator in between any of “Uncaused Cause”, it asserts that:
- There is additional “Uncaused Cause” of previous “Uncaused Cause(s)”, and if we consider that there is the latest “Uncaused Cause”, and there is “Uncaused Cause” coming from another thing, then it’s impossible since uncaused cause is not coming from any possible thing.
- There is additional “Uncaused Cause” of previous “Uncaused Cause(s)”, and if we consider that there is another “Uncaused Cause” (as the third uncaused cause), then it asserts that there must be more and more uncaused causes infinitely, since there must be another uncaused cause in between any of uncaused cause(s).
- It asserts that the number of all things are not fixed, in the sense that the number of all things (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all things (their self). It against axiom. Therefore: The number of all things are fixed. It asserts there is no infinitely uncaused cause(s). IOW, there must be only an uncaused cause (since if there are more than one uncaused causes, it would lead to the consequence which is impossible).
3) There is no a thing in between any of “Uncaused Cause(s)”, then there is no separator in between both of uncaused causes, furthermore, there is no distance in between both of uncaused causes.
- It asserts both “Uncaused Cause(s)” continuing one and another as one “Uncaused Cause”.
Conclusion
Therefore, there is no further for any of “the caused (Not Uncaused Cause)” and any of “Uncaused Cause” that capable to separate in between “Uncaused Causes”, therefore there is no separation in between any of them (“Uncaused Causes”), therefore:
Is there Uncaused Cause?
- Yes, there is only one “Uncaused Cause”.
- We live within The Biggest Thing as an Uncaused Cause! We are all within ONE. There Is The Only One Uncaused Cause as The Biggest Thing.
