Q&A: debate
debate
Question
Sorry for my English, and thanks for the amazing debate.
I must say in terms of debating and presenting the arguments you were in the lead!
just one question, (I know you haven't gotten to it in the debate, and you wrote about it, which I still haven't read.)
when you say there must be a ’cause for everything' – and that this statement is true everywhere, how do you escape this problem with regard to God himself, since he too is some kind of 'thing' that would require a cause according to your logic?
if you'd say he's a different kind of 'thing' – different from anything we are familiar with (as would have to be the case in order to eliminate the need for a cause..) then 1, what other 'thing' could it possibly be other than a 'nothing' about which we have no way even to speak in the logical realm? 2, if you do posit a new kind of 'something' that ultimately doesn't need a cause, why couldn't you posit it about nature itself (pantheism etc.), by saying there is this unknown 'something' here which by definition doesn't imply the need for a cause?
Answer
Hello.
As I explained there, my argument is a proof by negation. Assuming one accepts the principle of causality, there are only two possibilities: an infinite chain or a finite chain. An infinite chain is impossible (this is a failure of infinite regress, and I explained in my book The First Existing why such an explanation is flawed), so what remains is a finite chain.
Therefore, one must posit the existence of something that does not need a prior cause in order to exist. Apparently it is not the kind of thing I know from experience (because those require a cause). Why do I need to say anything more about it? I have proved the existence of such a thing, and even if I still cannot say anything about it, its existence has been proved. Think of footprints in the sand. When I see footprints, I infer that someone was here who made those footprints, but I cannot say anything about him beyond that. Does that mean there is no proof that someone passed through here?
Nature itself is not a candidate for this, for two reasons: 1. Nature is a collection of mechanical laws, and therefore it cannot be an explanation for anything. Someone legislated the mechanical laws that govern nature. And if nature is something specific, then that is the God I am talking about. After all, I have said nothing about Him beyond the fact that He is responsible for the existence and complexity of the world. 2. Nature is the totality of the things known to me, and therefore it requires a cause. There is nothing in nature beyond the totality of things that require causes.
Discussion on Answer
This debate did not deal with those questions. I discussed them in detail in my book The First Existing. Clearly there is a continuation of the argument until one arrives at religious obligation. The proof that the philosophical God exists does not require all of that.
Why not see nature as the "world" / playing field in which causes operate, and then argue that nature is self-caused?
Also, in the discussion you argued around minute 40 that the principle of causality applies even outside "reality," and around the end of minute 50 you argued that it does not apply to God because He is outside what is familiar. Isn't that a contradiction?
and to phrase my previous question better, I don't really see the difference between saying we 'don't know' what caused the universe, and saying 'there is something that we 'don't know' about'.. both are essentially admitting to the unknown nature over there, it's just that you implied that this 'not knowing' is a philosophical 'something' to gain some linguistic advantages…
A,
Is that "playing field" an entity? And did it create reality? If so, then that is God.
There is no contradiction. I argue that the principle of causality applies to everything unless proven otherwise. I proved that there must be an entity to which this principle does not apply. That entity I call God.
G,
If you don't see a difference, then we have no dispute. There is something that created the world, and I have nothing to say about it. Call it whatever you want; that is the conclusion I was aiming at and wanted to prove.
I already wrote to you here that the fact that I cannot say anything about it does not refute the proof of its existence (as in the example of the footprints). And this is really not empty semantics. Just as from the footprints I proved that someone passed through here and made them, so from the world I proved that there is something that created it. That's all.
Thanks.
But do you yourself think that you only 'establish' his existence without saying anything further about him? don't you go on and talk about his 'will' and reasons, which ultimately obligate us to his will, etc.? how then could you infer our
obligation to Torah and commandments
without saying anything more about his character? (his existence in itself doesn't imply it..)
Secondly, isn't this simple notion 'that he exists' self-defeating – since we couldn't possibly define this existence in any way we are capable of? in other words, what is the difference between saying 'I don't know' the cause of the universe, and saying 'I know there is something that I have no clue about'? what is the definition of 'existence' if we cannot define it?