The Rabbi's Letter and My Response Part 3

Had some back and forth today. Again my comments in blue:

Response from the Rabbi:

1. How does one conclude that if all things must have a cause, that there must be one thing that doesn’t? 

Simple. As that is the only way to avoid the question "and what caused that" There had to be a first existence and that first must not be subject to the question of what caused it, otherwise it would not be the first. 

My response:

So what you are essentially saying is that "not all things have a cause". I have two questions then:

1. If not all things are caused, why assume that that the there must have been something that caused the universe into existence instead of just saying that the universe is causeless? It seems entirely plausible under the assumption that "not all things have a cause" that the universe itself has no need for a cause. If you argue that this is impossible because "all things must have a cause" this is then a logical contradiction.

2. As far as I can tell everything does need a cause. This to me doesn't allow for the question, "what came first?" to have an answer. Similarly if I were to say "No X's exist" the question "where is the first X?" would have no answer. If "all things must have a cause" then there is no such thing as a "first cause". Either "all things must have a cause" is true or "there is a first cause", but not both. Why assume that there must be a first cause or causeless cause at all?

The Rabbi's response:

One can not say the universe is causeless as the universe itself contains space which is by definition a limitation. This automatically leads to question who created the universes limitation. Only the existence of an unlimited Being can supply that answer. My point is very simple: every limited item has the question of who created it's limitation applicable to it and hence this negates saying the universe has no cause. However an existence which is completely unlimited in all dimensions can not have a question of who caused it asked, as this question itself contradicts the un-limitation of this existence.

What you are saying here makes to me absolutely no sense. There must be a beginning/first existence and hence we must comprehend how that existence is not subject to the question. In essence a conclusion of that there is a supernal unlimited power [I.e. G-d] resolves how there was a first existence and that this first existence is not subject to the question cause. Not coming to this conclusion leaves one with the living contradiction of how can there be a beginning if all must have a cause. I can not accept the idea that there was no beginning. It sounds ludicrous and defies all measures of my G-d given rules of logic. As I had already stated rules of logic are not necessarily explainable [at least by me]. It's just the way the mind works, the same way the mind demands there to be a cause for everything, it demands that there must be a beginning.

My response:

Let's try to narrow this down into what I consider your proposition to be.

1. All limited things must have a cause.
2. Unlimited things don't have a cause.
3. Limited things can be caused by unlimited things.
 C. Therefore an Unlimited causeless thing must have caused all of the Limited things we currently observe, and thus at least one Unlimited thing exists.

While I accept 1 , I find no reasonable basis for 2 and 3.

1. What does an Unlimited Being or thing mean?
2. Not being limited by what exactly and how does the absence of this particular limitation have any connection to causality such that it no longer needs to be caused?
3. Why must limited things be caused by unlimited things?

"Not coming to this conclusion leaves one with the living contradiction of how can there be a beginning if all must have a cause." This is only a contradiction if assume there must be a "beginning". If there is no beginning there is no contradiction. I see no reason to believe there must be a beginning. You claim that it defies logic for there to be no beginning, however you have not explained how it defies logic.

Logically I see no problem with the statements "everything has a cause" and "there was no beginning". This is what I happen to believe.

What seems intuitive to us doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Intuition is a very poor basis on which to base one's beliefs. It is better to base it on logic, reason and evidence. There is nothing illogical or unreasonable about accepting the proposition that "everything has a cause and therefore there is no beginning". If there is please point it out.

Why do I believe this? It isn't because of intuition or how I "feel" it should work, but rather because this is a result of my perception of the world around me. For everything in existence I see a cause and effect. I have no evidence whatsoever of "unlimited beings" or of "uncaused causes" and as such I have no reason to believe they exist in reality. More than likely they are figments of our imagination.

The Rabbi's response:
 

2. Not being limited by what exactly and how does the absence of this particular limitation have any connection to causality such that it no longer needs to be caused?

An unlimited existence means a perfect existence in every way and dimension imaginable and unimaginable. It hence does not carry any definition or limitation. It is not subject to time or space etc. Since it has no definition it allows me to move on to the next step which is who created this unlimited existence, to which we answer that since the existence is perfect and unlimited it is above and beyond the concept of cause and beginning and rather it created those concepts. In other words a limited existence will always be subject to a cause because the mind dictates to them the rule that all existences have a cause. However an unlimited creation, being by definition above limitations of rules or laws of logic as we know it can not have this question asked.

3. Why must limited things be caused by unlimited things?

The first limited being must according to logic have been created by an unlimited being which is thus above the concept of cause, otherwise we would forever be going back to the question of who created the first cause. From there and on to say that all creations were separately created by G-d and dismiss the theory of evolution is another topic.

In my opinion your belief of no beginning is at that, an imagined belief which defies all of man's common sense and common observation. In fact I must say your last sentence itself is self contradictory, as you state your belief in cause and effect because of your observation, but at the same time do not believe in a beginning, when we all observe as well that all have a beginning the same as we observe they have a cause and effect. So how can you accept one observation and not another just in order to satisfy your desire to revoke the responsibilities of owning up to a Higher power. This is called living in hypocrisy.

All this is in addition to what I still stand by that logic cannot accept the concept of no beginning the same way it cannot accept the concept of no cause, the same way it cannot accept the concept of 1+1=3.

I don’t believe our minds are made different to such an extent. Think about it in depth and I am sure you will come to a rational conclusion that saying "no beginning" is irrational. How could time just have been around forever? How can space be around forever? This makes sense to you? Discuss this with others. Perhaps they can explain this to you better. Further then this I do not have the ability to explain to you.

As I started this entire correspondence mentioning that one can argue that that the cup really does not exist and there is really no absolute proof at all that it does. This argument to me seems the same as the one we are currently having, as by all matters we accept there must be a beginning, and it is for this reason we subject them a cause. Someone now wants to come along and tell me "Yes all limited items have beginning and cause except one -the universe or limited existences as a whole" Although I cannot absolutely prove you wrong. This statement completely defies every sense of my logic and I hence cannot accept it on any terms.

With regards to you mentioning the intellectually forced conclusion of G-d's existence as figments of our imagination this reminds me of a parable of describing the difference between humans and animals. Animals are always facing down so to them the sky that we humans all know of is a figment of our imagination. [This is metaphorical-as in truth animals due look up at times] The reason for the animals limited perceptions is because he never bothered to look up. Similarly it is with G-d's existence: Those who want to judge by exactly what their eyes see are like the animal who will never know of the skies existence. However those which  use their minds to ponder and comprehend one matter from another will come and realize the absolute amazement of how G-d is apparent from all aspects of the world.

I remain.

I do not see how I can help any further on this specific point of proof.

My response:

Ultimately I don’t believe you have given any rational justification for why a limited thing ultimately needs an unlimited cause. See below.

You propose that limited things, like subatomic particles, cannot have existed forever in some form or another. The fact that they are limited doesn’t give me any indication that they must have a cause. Personally, if I was going to accept the notion that there are things in the universe that are causeless, I have no reason to assume that subatomic particle (limited as they may be) could not be uncaused, but rather eternal.

Now the crutch of the issue is my not accepting your proposition that “there must have been a first cause”. You claim that this is illogical.

“In fact I must say your last sentence itself is self contradictory, as you state your belief in cause and effect because of your observation, but at the same time do not believe in a beginning, when we all observe as well that all have a beginning the same as we observe they have a cause and effect. ” What beginning do we all observe exactly? Everything I have ever observed is caused by something else, which is caused by something else, etc. Please provide an example of something that you observed which is a “beginning”.  You can point to something, a birth, a first tooth, etc as a beginning, but you know as well as I that this is only playing with semantics. Neither of us have observed an uncaused cause and as such there is no reason to assume an uncaused cause exists in reality. It is that simple.

“How could time just have been around forever? How can space be around forever? This makes sense to you?” You continually reject this approach as illogical, but have yet to provide me with one rational reason why this is not a logical possibility. Time and space is said to have been formed at the Big Bang, but this doesn’t mean that there weren’t conditions that caused the Big Bang, and conditions that caused those conditions etc. I see no logical problem with this. It makes much more sense than to say some indefinable entity X caused this universe to exist.

“Someone now wants to come along and tell me "Yes all limited items have beginning and cause except one -the universe or limited existences as a whole"” If you truly believe this is my claim, then I suggest you reread my comments thus far. I have never made a claim even remotely resembling this. I will reiterate. Everything has a cause. Nothing has a beginning. A beginning means that is doesn’t have a cause. If a beginning can still have a cause, then all you are doing is playing with words. Instead replace every time beginning is used with “uncaused cause”. This may help you understand my approach better.

To sum up your arguments for why not believing an “uncaused cause” must exist:

1.       It is common sense – (Intuition is a very poor indicator of truth. See for example peoples intuition that the world was flat)
2.       We observe beginnings – (Semantics. We have never observed any “uncaused causes”. If you have please inform me of it)
3.       Causality could not exist indefinitely “backwards” – (There is no reason to assume this isn’t the case. We see that causality has as of yet “moves” indefinitely “forwards”, what is illogical about the assumption that it does the same in reverse?)

If there are any other arguments you made for why the beliefs “everything has a cause” and “there are no uncaused causes” are illogical please provide them, but it should be clear even to you that the above arguments are very unconvincing. 1 and 3 are not logical problems, they reveal your preconceived beliefs without explaining why you believe them. 2 is clearly false.

Lastly, even if I were to accept that there is at least one “uncaused cause”, by claiming a supreme being which is both indefinable and unimaginable is the cause is just a mask of ignorance. Saying “God created the universe from nothing, but I can't tell you how He did it” is not an explanation of how the universe came into being. Stating that a non-defined entity X must be the cause of all existence has no explanatory power (in short it adds nothing to our understanding of our universe, only a defined entity could do that). It is no different than claiming “laws of nature” are uncaused and need no explanation.  This is a non answer and basically results in asking me to “accept the mystery” which essentially means “accept my own ignorance” or “don’t ask such questions”.

You have also accused me of only rejecting this notion of an “uncaused cause” so that I can revoke my responsibilities to a Higher Power. I would rather not bring personal feelings into this discussion, simply rational arguments. I could just as well accuse your acceptance of a particular belief to be due to some emotional reason not related to rationality, but this I feel is unproductive.