By definition, that’s exactly what it means.
It’s not random.
How can that not be relevant? You can’t say that X is always Y, then give an example of Z being Y, and say, ok, Z really isn’t X but my point still stands. No it doesn’t.
That is the only true way that something can truly be random. Most things we call random really are not.
No; they do mean the same thing in this context. As Diogenes points out, anything truly random has no cause.
And what “preconditions” are you talking about ? I asked before and you ignored the question. Quantum events occur everywhere, all the time, and affect everything.
Yes, they are, in this case
…which are? Oh yes, the fluctuations in the vacuum energy - which is caused by what, again?
No, no prior commitment, merely a reading of the context. All you’ve attempted to do is move the uncaused thing from the virtual particles to the vacuum energy. But that solves nothing.
Sorry I haven’t been keeping up with all of the posts here. I have been thinking about the issue some more and have some other points that I would like to make
On the “contradiction” between definition and conclusion
I think here a lot of effort has been put into trying to show that Aquinas arguments do not connect to has conclusion, but I think most of the arguments thus-far are mis-stating exactly what Aquinas said. If you read through his words carefully, within the arguments themselves there is a meaningful distinction made between God and other entities. So:
[QUOTE=Aquinas]
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine)
Note that Aquinas did NOT say (as those that say there is a contradiction suggest he did) that no causeless events are possible, except for God. What he is saying is that causeless events are not part of our direct experience of the world. Yet even through we do not observe them they must exist since otherwise there is no way to explain the world that we do experience.
This is important and significant because it is in direct contrast to Dawkinsian style naturalism. This holds that there is nothing at all beyond what we experience, Gods or otherwise. Dawkins main battle-cry in all that we writes on religion is “where is the evidence”. Aquinas said that the natural world itself necessarily points to the existence of something else that we do not experience, and have no direct evidence of. Yet the nature of the world cannot be explained in any other way but to say that this entity exits.
It is true that this argument tells us nothing of the nature of the causeless event, save that it is causeless. It is also true that, on the basis of this argument alone “God” fits in with many worldviews, including theism, deism and polytheism. Yet this argument was never intended to be taken on its own. Aquinas justifies calling the uncaused cause “God” in the rest of his quite sizeable work. To suggest that this argument is the beginning and the end of what Aquinas said on the matter is obviously false.
On causeless events and quantum mechanics
In the understanding of nature given by classical physics, the world is entirely deterministic, Aquinas premise of every observable event requiring a cause holds. In the newer quantized understanding of nature, the world is no longer strictly deterministic. However, even though I believe I was the first to raise this objection in the thread, I am not convinced that quantum mechanics completely invalidates the statement that we observe no causeless events.
The problem is that while the outcome of individual quantum events are not deterministic, neither are they entirely random. Probabilities of quantum events are determined by the surrounding conditions, such that given a description of a system we can determine the likelihood of an event occurring. It also means that large ensembles of quantum events behave in an entirely deterministic way, as the individual action of each entity averages out over the total.
So for instance take the quantum tunneling of an electron through a potential barrier. While it may be unknown specifically which electrons will tunnel through the barrier and which will not, the overall tunneling current is able to be determined based on the probabilities of a tunneling event. Additionally, since the tunneling probability is connected to the size of the potential barrier, if I change the barrier I can deterministically change the tunneling current.
It is important to remember that quantum mechanics is not magic. It does NOT say that anything can happen anywhere for any reason. What it does suggest that while events are non-deterministic, the probabilities of each event are strictly controlled by the surrounding conditions and are therefore deterministic. For quantum events to be entirely causeless even the probabilities of an event happening must be non-deterministic. So to go back to the electron tunneling example if quantum events were entirely non-deterministic then the tunneling current would be independent of the potential barrier and would also be unable to be predicted. This is not what we observe at all, and thus quantum events are caused on at least some level.
Additionally, in terms of Dawkins wider philosophy there is another problem with saying that there are uncaused events. Scientific empiricism relies on the assumption that the world works in a uniformity of cause and effect. If there are truly causeless events that happen, then the scientific method can tell us nothing about them. More seriously if there is also no a priori way to which events are caused and which are uncaused than the scientific method fails completely, since “this event needs no cause” is a hypothesis that is impossible to invalidate empirically. If natural uncaused events are significant enough to create the universe, is there anything that cannot be a result of them? I can almost hear the creationists saying that fossil record popped into existence recently without cause, and then citing Dawkins as proof that such things can happen.
Since Dawkins seems to elevate scientific empiricism to be the only way to discover truth, to undermine it here to try and disprove Aquinas really seems to be the philosophical equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The argument, if correct, so seriously undermines the rest of his worldview that it is one that Dawkins simply cannot make.
**On infinite regresses **
The argument that there is indeed an infinite chain of causes and events in the world has IMHO two fatal flaws. The first of these is pointed out by Aquinas himself, if one cares to understand exactly what he is saying. The problem essentially comes from the question “what started the chain of events”? If you say that it extends infinitely back in time, then there is really no starting point. But if you also say that everything is caused by something else, then this is a contradiction. Essentially what you are saying is that the chain of events started itself, which is absurd, since it needs to exist in order to begin to exist. Either there is a start that “just is” without cause, as in the cause of God, or there are uncaused events. It impossible that something could both be pre-exist for eternity and require a preceding cause.
The other problem from a practical viewpoint is that what we know about cosmology suggests that the universe has not existed forever. The big bang requires that there is a zero-point in time, before which there was nothing. Since the cause of an event necessarily is before it (it cannot be after due to all sorts of logical paradoxes) than an infinite chain of cause/events also requires an infinite time scale. The universe that we observe has not existed for infinite time, and thus there is no place for an infinite chain of causal events.
**On the skill of Dawkins original argument **
In this thread there seems to be two questions. Firstly, “did Dawkins intentionally distort Aquinas argument for rhetorical effect?”, and secondly, “is there a good argument against what Aquinas said?”.
In terms of the first question, I would say no, I don’t think that Dawkins is intentionally distorting Aquinas. I think the problem with Dawkins argument both here and in general is that he is simply not trying very hard, and his logic is sloppy as a result. I would like to think that if Dawkins made a serious effort he is capable of properly understanding the issues involved, but what he has written does not give evidence of that.
I think his writing suffers from three problems
Dawkins is quickly and incredibly dismissive of anything that he disagrees with. He seems to prefer just discounting anything that goes against what he believes rather than interacting with the issue. For instance, see on page 67 where he (indirectly admittedly) calls the Pope John Paul II a hypocrite for accepting Darwinianism, without any discussion of how Catholicism could incorporate evolution. In Dawkins mind it is self evidently true that religion = creationism, and therefore anyone saying otherwise, even someone as learned in Catholic theology as the Pope, must be wrong. Or worse still on page 57 the shockingly dismissive way Dawkins treats the arguments of Stephen Jay Gould on the NOMA principle where he says:
“I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages”.
In fact in that section Dawkins incredibly dismissive of the large majority of scientists, or indeed anyone who does not share his “science or nothing” epistemology.
Dawkins is willfully ignorant on matters of theology in general and Christian theology specifically. What is appalling about this is that he appears almost proud of his ignorance of the subject. So for instance on page 33 he writes:
[QUOTE=Dawkins]
Christians should warm to such sophistry. Rivers of medieval ink, not to mention blood, have been squandered over the ‘mystery’ of the Trinity, and in suppressing deviations such as the Arian heresy. Arius of Alexandria, in the fourth century AD, denied that Jesus was consubstantial (i.e. of the same substance or essence) with God. What on earth could that possibly mean, you are probably asking? Substance? What ‘substance’? What exactly do you mean by ‘essence’? ‘Very little’ seems the only reasonable reply. Yet the controversy split Christendom down the middle for a century, and the Emperor Constantine ordered that all copies of Arius’s book should be burned. Splitting Christendom by splitting hairs – such has ever been the way of theology.
[/QUOTE]
The Arian heresy is easy to understand in a nutshell. It is a question over whether Jesus is fully a character of God or not. If yes than Christianity is Trinitarian, if not than it is polytheistic. It is an important question as it is still being argued today. So for instance the Jehovah’s Witnesses are an example of a group that has an Arian rather than Trinitarian view of Jesus. The fact that Dawkins is baffled by this shows that he is just not trying very hard to understand what is being said.
Additionally in his handling of the bible he makes a few quite embarrassing mistakes. One example is on page 253 where he definitely attributes the letter of Hebrews to the apostle Paul, something which very few serious scholars, Evangelical or Liberal do. Probably Dawkins source for his arguments got it wrong, and he simply does not know enough about current biblical scholarship to know the difference. If true than it says little for his ability to argue against Christian theology.
And therein lies the problem with Dawkins’ book. I think to him it is so self evident that religion is false, that serious intellectual work is not needed in interacting with it. How else could Dawkins’ dismiss theology without ever really studying it? How does he know that it is vacuous until he puts in the effort to understand what theologians are saying? In this respect is he any better than the creationist who just knows that evolution is wrong and therefore doesn’t feel the need to study or understand it in order to refute it? Indeed the book itself encourages its readers to simply mock religious people rather than logically argue with them. And ultimately I think that is what Dawkins has produced. A book that is big on rhetoric and condescension, and small on good scholarship or reasoned argument.
Calculon.
I think that Dawkins is arguing against “Popular Aquinas”, which is to say, the arguments of Aquinas as they have entered into popular culture. These arguments necessarily do not incorporate the entirety of the summa theologia into (each of) them. I believe that he honestly beleives that the arguements are as he knows them, and was therefore honest in his attacks on them, even if the result ended up being incomplete in some way.
That said, I do not believe that any of Aquinas’s arguments can be ‘saved’, pretty much regardless of what else is elsewhere in his work. However, I am willing to have my ignorance fought with brief summaries of the complete arguments, as any reviewer perceives them to be. (Telling me to RTFM doesn’t count.)
This is one of the things I was trying to say. So I agree.
Well, I was also saying (in the portion that you didn’t quote) that I didn’t think it really mattered; the portions of argument that everyone knows about are sufficiently fallacious (particularly in regard to special pleading), that I have serious doubts that the remainder of the work manages to plug the holes. If I’m right, then attacking the popular conceptions of the arguments is a reasonably fair attack on the original work, if not a perfect one.
On a similar note, I disagree that one needs to be versed in all the hundreds of years of scholarly (and not-so-scholarly) discourse on religion to argue against it. Whether he’s a biblical expert or a gibbering idiot, his arguments and argumentation stand or fall on their own, and criticizing his entire credibility based on a misattribution of the letter of Hebrews is nothing but a shallow ad hominem.
This is untrue. You’re continuing to have trouble with the concept of infinity. Lots of people do. I’m not sure how to explain it better than it’s been said already in this thread.
While it is possible that someone uneducated in a field may be able to speak meaningfully of it, it is extremely unlikely. What will happen in nearly every case is that someone arguing on something they know little about will end up creating a host of fallacious arguments and straw men that people educated in the field are easily able to spot. This I think more closely describes Dawkins’ efforts.
In places it seems as though Dawkins’ argument is that his inability to understand theology is in of itself proof that it is vacuous. Indeed this seems really the only way that one can logically dismiss something that you do not understand. This argument is obviously false, since there are many things that are true that are neverthless not understood by people.
Secondly, I think that his mis-attributation of Hebrews to Paul is significant in its context, since he is using the letter of Hebrews as an example of what Paul believed. It is not done just in passing. If he wanted to present some evidence as to why he felt that Hebrews was written by Paul and his use of it was justified, that would be one thing. However to go against current opinion without comment like he does really does make him look like he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Rather it reads as though is mearly uncritically parroting some stuff that he has read and sounds plausible to him. When fitteded into the wider pattern of other mis-uses of the bible and his views on theology in general it is deeply troubling.
Calculon.
Calculon, excellent, informative and insightful post. I’m very appreciative.
Actually I have trouble myself, not with abstract infinities, but concrete actualized infinite quantities, which in my observation are in short supply. Could you link the post in this thread that explains this little issue away?
(Of course, I don’t disbelieve in uncaused events - heck, what causes gravity to exist? - so this isn’t a problem for me. But I’m curious about your claim that it’s been resolved.)
Explain then what caused the infinite chain of events to exist in the first place.
Why should that chain exist rather than nothing? What started it existing?
I am willing to grant that either an infinite chain of uncaused events may exist, or that a causal chain, once started at a particular time may continue to exist forever. The problem is in both requiring that something has a definite cause, and simultaneously denying that there is a definite cause to that same thing (as is required by being eternally existant). An eternally pre-existant chain of causal events is hopelessly circular.
Calculon.
Just one extra thing I was thinking, and wanted to amke clear. Dawkins’ lack of appreciation of theology does not mean in of itself that he is wrong. One can still be uneducated and yet correct. Dawkins is wrong because his arguments do not stand up on their own terms. The fact that he cares little for theology does however explain how he can simultaneously be a good and informative writer on biology, and yet write such a bad book on religion.
His lack of education means also that we should be very wary taking his word for anything on that subject that he cannot give good reason for. Since he is uneducated than his opinion on theology, which is usually based on experience, is worth little since he has so little experience of theology. This is distinct from the logical arguments he may present, which are based obviously on logic and not on the person presenting them.
Calculon.
Why would you accept an infinite chain of uncaused events, but not caused?
I’ll try and sum up my version of it anyway. The idea, simply, is that caused things only need a proximate cause. The ultimate cause, i.e., the beginning of the chain, is exactly what an infinite regress eliminates the need for. In other words, you can’t ask for the beginning of an infinite chain. Therefore you can’t claim it is impossible because the chain itself has no cause, that’s the whole idea.
A first cause is only necessary in a universe with a finite past. However, in an infinite universe, there is no need to postulate uncaused things at all (though quantum theory already tells us they exist).
That every event has a proximate cause, and also that nothing is uncaused – that can only both be true if there is an infinite chain of past causes. By saying they can’t both be true, you are essentially asserting that infinite chains are impossible. That may be the case, but nobody has shown it yet.
Well, other than by reminding people that there’s no such thing as an infinite cardinality of actualized objects - that is, that if you have a chain of causality, you can always ask “how many links does it have” and get an answer back. 'Cause these things actually happened, and so you can count how many times that happened.
Of course, some people have forgotten you can’t have an infinite actualized cardinality of objects (or events)…and some of 'em can be hard to convince otherwise, regardless of the math!
This is all wrong from start to finish. First of all, Dawkins does NOT say “nothing exists beyond what we experience.” Considering that this whole thread is based on accusing Dawkins of misrepresenting/misunderstanding Aquinas, let’s try to avoid misstating Dawkins, ok? What Dawkins says is that there is no reason to presume the existence of something without evidence. He does not, and never has made a positive claim that gods cannot exist, or that anything “beyond our experience” cannot exist.
Secondly, Aquinas was wrong that there is any evidence in nature of an “entity” beyond our experience. Aquinas didn’t know WTF he was talking about. Full stop. It wasn’t his fault. He was literally living in the dark ages. He didn’t have the benefit even of knowing Newtonian physics, much less Quantum physics. There is no demonstrated need for a First Cause. The proof is dead right there until that need is demonstrated.
It is not true that Aquinas makes the justification for calling his Prime Mover “God” elsewhere in the Summa. Why do people keep saying this? It isn’t true. If you disagree, please cite the part where Aquinas connects between “unmoved mover” and omnimax God.
On causeless events and quantum mechanics
In the understanding of nature given by classical physics, the world is entirely deterministic, Aquinas premise of every observable event requiring a cause holds. In the newer quantized understanding of nature, the world is no longer strictly deterministic. However, even though I believe I was the first to raise this objection in the thread, I am not convinced that quantum mechanics completely invalidates the statement that we observe no causeless events.
The problem is that while the outcome of individual quantum events are not deterministic, neither are they entirely random. Probabilities of quantum events are determined by the surrounding conditions, such that given a description of a system we can determine the likelihood of an event occurring. It also means that large ensembles of quantum events behave in an entirely deterministic way, as the individual action of each entity averages out over the total.
So for instance take the quantum tunneling of an electron through a potential barrier. While it may be unknown specifically which electrons will tunnel through the barrier and which will not, the overall tunneling current is able to be determined based on the probabilities of a tunneling event. Additionally, since the tunneling probability is connected to the size of the potential barrier, if I change the barrier I can deterministically change the tunneling current.
It is important to remember that quantum mechanics is not magic. It does NOT say that anything can happen anywhere for any reason. What it does suggest that while events are non-deterministic, the probabilities of each event are strictly controlled by the surrounding conditions and are therefore deterministic. For quantum events to be entirely causeless even the probabilities of an event happening must be non-deterministic. So to go back to the electron tunneling example if quantum events were entirely non-deterministic then the tunneling current would be independent of the potential barrier and would also be unable to be predicted. This is not what we observe at all, and thus quantum events are caused on at least some level.
[/quote]
Or not. We don’t really know that. In any case, what matters is that quantum events don’t have to be caused by this physical universe or be dependent on its existence.
Science makes no such assumption at all.
Fails to do what? You’re also wrong that the hypothesis is impossible to invalaide. It’s trivially easy to invalidate. All you have to do is demonstrate a cause.
Sure;y you can see how specious this is. It does not follow that because a quantum event can cause a universe, that said universe does not have its own properties and laws, or that quantum events can interfere with those properties in significant way.
Name another way.
This is fallacious. You are making a straw man out of quantum physics. Nobody claimed it was magic or that it can do anything.
No it isn’t. That’s like saying that every succeeding number on a number line is one more than the one before it is a
a “contradiction.” There is no need for a “start” in a casual chain.
No, we’re saying there isn’t any need for a “start.”
It doesn’t need a “beginning.”
I think the problem here is that you’re seeing the whole chain as a single “something,” which you’re nmisunderstanding as needing a holistic cause. It’s not a single “something,” it’s an infinite chain of individual “somethings,” and there is absolutely no reason it ever needs a terminus in either direction.
This is only true if you limit all existence to this one universe. The quantum field does not require this universe as a “place” to exist. Are you familiar with multiverse or “brane” theories?
While there might be some validity to all of this, none of it has any relevance to either his characterizations or his refutations of Aquinas’ 5 Proofs.
How much serious intellectual work is need to refute a claim that diseases are cuased by evil spirits?
[quote]
How else could Dawkins’ dismiss theology without ever really studying it?
[/quote
Until theologians can prove their first premises, there’s no reason to study it. It’s all based on a priori assumptions. If you don’t accept those assumptions, what’s the point?
He was calling Aquinas vaccuous in his scientific claims, not his theological ones.
Theism offers nothing to study. It’s all just bald assertions with no evidence. There’s nothing in it to empirically examine. The comparison to evolution is invalid in every respect.
Should people not be allowed to dismiss the existence of ghosts unless they read ghost stories? Until religionist can offer anything beyond pres assertions (especially when those assertions are unnecessitated by – indeed, often even contradicted by – empirical evidence, there’s nothing to “interact” with or analyze. Claims don’t merit intense intellectual interaction just because they’re made. It’s not even really possible to interact intellectually with unfalsifiable claims, no matter how elaborate or how old. Think about it. Can you say you feel safe in saying there;s no evidence for Zeus if you haven’t made an extensive study of Greek mythology? Why does Christian mythology need to be taken any more seriously?
All I can say is I’ve read the book, and I this is a misrepresentation in every way. At no point does Dawkins encourage “mockery” over logic. Quite the opposite. It’s also not true that his argumentation – at least as it pertains to the pure EOG discussion – is unsound, nor is any of the schoarship that’s actually relevant to anything.
I also don’t think Dawkins is particularly condescending. I think a lot of religionists just want to shoot the messenger because the message is embarrassing to them.
Bolding mine.
Think about this for a while. We’re talking about infinity. There is no start.
And Aquinas gives reasons as to why something beyond our experience exists
Proof by vigourous assertion is not a real proof. Why do you believe that he is wrong.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter, since it is irrelevant to the argument that Aquinas makes. Anyway, what makes you say that Aquinas does not connect the prime mover to a more sophisticated view of God?
On causeless events and quantum mechanics
Wrong. As pointed out the probabilities and allowed states of quantum events ARE determined by the environment it is in. The only part that is non-deterministic is which particular state something will actually be in.
So let me ask you, is the statement “This event had no cause” falsifiable in a scientific sense, any more than “This event is the result of God’s action”. If not then are uncaused events compatible with the assumptions of science?
Wrong. Science works by falsifying statements and then whatever left must be the truth. The statement that something is without cause is non-falsifiable, and therefore can never be discounted.
But until we set definite limits on exactly what “uncaused” processes can do, then it is still possible that there are no universal laws. And given that the creation of the very universe involves all matter, it seems silly to say that the entire universe could pop into existence, but a few dinosaur bones is going too far.
Logical inference. Science does not prove logic, rather it takes it as given.
In saying that quantum events are entirely random, then yes you are.
No, no it’s not. What you are essentially saying is that for an infinite number of preceeding steps there is always one more cause before that. The mathematics of infinite numbers tell us that infinity+1 = infinity. Infinity, by definition, is the largest quantity that can exist. An infinite chain of preceeding events is logically and mathematically impossable.
But a fundamental property of every event in the chain is that it had a cause. That fundamentally contradicts the statement the chain has no cause.
Is there any proof at all that these things actually exist?
I think it is relevant in terms of why they are so poor.
Specifically, not much because the claim has already been tested in medieval times and found wanting.
How do you know they haven’t proven their assumptions until you study them to understand the arguments?
And as far as I can tell all you have done is just vigorously asserted that he was wrong without specifying why.
So there is nothing to study in art, music, literature, ect? Everybody studying these things are wasting their time?
Secondly, the claim that there is no evidence is false, at least for Christianity. Christianity claims that there were specific events in the past, which can be studied. You may not agree with the justifications that theologians give, but to claim that there are none at all is just ignorant.
And again we get back to the circular problem of how do you know that all theology is vapid unless you actually attempt to first understand it on its own terms? I am more than a little suprised that on a website supposedly about fighting ignorance, anyone would take such a blatantly anti-intellectual position.
Secondly the old cannard about “I am just an atheist with respect to one more God than you” you allude to in the Zeus is obviously mis-stated. I don’t disbelieve in Zeus because of a lack of evidence. Convinced as I am that Christianity is correct, and that Greek mythology necessarily contradicts that which I know to be true, I discount it on the basis of logical inference. I don’t disbelieve in Zeus because of lack of evidence. I am required to know enough about Greek mythology to understand that it contradicts what I know to be correct, but once that is established I need not know more. If however you deny Zeus on the basis of lack of evidence, than for the claim to stand you do actually have to make a good study of the evidence.
What about the part where he says outright that he expects “Died in the wool faith-heads” will not agree with him since they are immune to logic?
I too have read “The God delusion”, and I feel my characterisation is fair. What I found particularly grating was way in which Dawkins continually refers to all sorts of people like Fred Phelps suggesting that religous people are all like this, without the balance of anything good to say about it. One particularly egregious example is in the “Neville Chamberlin school of agnosticism” section. The central inference being that since Neville Chamberlin was the British Prime-minister famous for appeasing Hitler, then for the analogy to hold all religious people are like Nazis.
I would suggest that if someone wrote a book saying that all atheists are like Josef Stalin or Madeline Murray O’Hair, since they too were atheists, many atheists would (rightly IMHO) get upset over that. However when Dawkins does the same thing about religious people whatever outrage there is over it is because religious people are too sensitive. If you can’t see how condescending Dawkins is than I can only suggest that it is possibly because deep down you have the same (IMHO ugly) prejudices against religious people that he has.
I also maintain that “The God Delusion” is full of shoddy scholarship. One of the striking things about it is that for a book that claims to be about God, how few theologians and theological works are quoted in it. Especially in the EOG section where he intends expressly to interact with the views of theologians. One of the key things that marks out scholarly writings is the careful way in which scholars interact with the community around them. Dawkins shows no sign that he even understands what the theological community around him is saying, since “The God Delusion” contains so few references to others.
Calculon.
But one of the fundamental properties of every event in the chain is that it was caused by something else, and therefore there was a time when it didn’t exist. If there is no start than this can’t be.
Again: Infinity+1 = Infinity. If something happened an infinite time ago than there is no time before that for it’s cause to exist. Anything that happened an infinite time ago cannot be preceeded by anything. Therefore there cannot be an infinite series of caused events.
Calculon.
So, if you have a hotel with infinite rooms and a bus with infinite passengers shows up…
No, the thing that happened infinite time ago, something happened before that. Actually, infinity things happened before that. Lots of people struggle with this, don’t worry about it. When I was a CS major and we started going over infinities my mind melted for a bit. I got better.