TPF : First Cause arguments

[Gnomon]

You have said: "... before first cause, nothing."
How do your descriptions of the inception of first cause have anything to work with other than nothing? — ucarr

I think you are sincerely trying to grasp an Idealistic worldview*1 that is radically different from your own Materialistic worldview*2. {pardon the pigeon-holing} Both are Metaphysical concepts created in philosophical Minds. Each perspective has developed a peculiar vocabulary of its own. So, you may think that Gnomon's worldview is Idealistic (no thing), and in direct opposition to Materialism (no thought). But my Enformationism worldview is not so easy to pigeonhole, because it is moderated by the Holistic BothAnd approach to understanding the Things of Reality and the Non-Things of Ideality.

Application of the BothAnd Principle*3 requires one to look at both sides of any Either/Or argument as-if they are merely qualitative aspects of an inclusive holistic comprehensive worldview. But it doesn't mean that you have to ultimately accept one side or another. Instead, its goal is 3D stereoscopic vision : attempting to approximate a god-like understanding of Everything Everywhere All-At-Once, yet without the power of omniscience. So, that ballpark conjecture may appear to straddle the conceptual gap between the polar opposites, like the Colossus of Rhodes.

For example : I just read this passage in Bernardo Kastrup's Science Ideated : "What seems to be beyond Coyne's ability to comprehend is that the dualism between mind and matter he implicitly relies on . . . . doesn't exist. To an idealist like me, there is no brain or matter outside or independent of mind. Instead, the 'material' brain is merely the extrinsic appearance, in some mind, of the inner mentation of (some other) mind." I understand the words, but I cannot imagine that bodies & brains are imaginary --- unless the image is in the Mind of God, which is itself a recursive idea in my mini-mind. So, it's also beyond my ability to imagine a world in which my own body is imaginary*4. My power of abstraction is not that omniscient.

Therefore, I can't grok Exclusionary Materialism (no mind) or Absolute Idealism (no matter). My body & brain seems to automatically "see" the world in terms of material phenomena. Yet, my brain-functions are able to Abstract the matter away, and to treat its logical structure (noumena) as-if it is a real thing. So, I can only make sense of that Metaphysical Duality by reminding myself that the "Map is not the Terrain". From that perspective, I can enjoy the idea of a Mind, and the reality of a Brain. And I can imagine an abstract-logic First Cause, without leaving my idea-causing Brain behind.

Note --- The hypothetical "as-if" means an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is considered likely or possible.

*1. Idealism :
As an analytic idealist, Kastrup proposes that consciousness is the ontological primitive, the foundation of reality.
https://danielpinchbeck.substack.com/p/ ... olutionary

*2. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*3. Both/And Principle :
# My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*4. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person believes in two contradictory things at the same time.


IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE (dueling) IMPOSSIBLE (incompatible) CONCEPTS?
eb4314a975a6699d973398d012ff71df.jpg

Colossus-of-Rhodes.jpg

[Gnomon]

Handshakes across the aisle. — ucarr

Thanks. Speaking of philosophical aisles :


It seems to me your argument misses a significant distinction: 'that there is first cause' & 'what the first cause is'; "there is no limitation on what the first cause is', not in reference to 'that there was a first cause'. — 180 Proof
I'm now expressing big gratitude to 180 Proof. He's done a superb job fulfilling my request. I now believe his statement above detects a fatal flaw in my argument. Philosophim has claimed there is no limitation on what a first cause can be. At the opposite end of the spectrum, he has claimed there is a conclusive limitation on that a first cause can be: logical necessity. — ucarr

↪180 Proof is much more knowledgeable of Philosophy than I am. But his worldview & belief system (Immanentism ; p-Naturalism) has an inherent limit that precludes consideration of some logical possibilities that go beyond space-time : his "conclusive limitation". I suspect that you might agree with that physical barrier, while disagreeing with the implied logical limitation : Abstract Reason can go (in imaginary scenarios) where no material body can go. The human Mind can project (fantasy or logic) into the Future and into the Past, in order to learn about otherwise unknowable possibilities : e.g. Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey*1.

In this thread, I never got the impression that you were arguing for any specific kind of First Cause (What), but merely reasoning about the logical necessity for something to kick-start the chain of Causation (That). The OP poses the question in generic (X or Y) & abstract (infinite prior causality) terms. So, I don't think 180's "distinction" really applies to this thread. He may be filling-in the "X" with a god-model of his own imagination.

When ↪Philosophim says that there is "no limit" on what the Cause of Being might be {see PS below}, he's merely admitting that we are speculating about a state & event that is empirically unverifiable (no known rules), but logically plausible (rules of reasoning) : for example -- the Multiverse conjecture tries to have it both ways : Eternal Laws of Nature, and Unlimited Causal Energy (i.e. no Entropy).

Nevertheless, for the purposes of an amateur forum, we can reasonably conclude that a contingent world (big bang beginning) requires a prior Cause of some kind (infinite ; recursive?), without taking the next step of identifying specific characteristics (loving, merciful?) of that Cosmic Causal Potential*2. However, space-time does place physical limits on "how causality functions". So, most causal conjectures are eventually forced to go beyond the physical barrier into the realm of Pure Reason .

Some anti-first-cause arguments attempt to refute "Logical Necessity" and Metaphysical Necessity with alternative definitions and modalities. But Philosophim also offers Mathematical Necessity. So, take your choice : Physical Limits, Logical Limits, Mathematical Limits, or anything goes. All human reasoning has inherent limits, beginning with our physical senses and motives.


*1. 8 predictions Arthur C. Clarke got right decades ago
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/8-predict ... ictures/3/

*2. "Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause". — Philosophim

*3. "I'm a p-naturalist¹ and thereby speculatively assume that aspects of nature are only explained within – immanently to – nature itself by using other aspects of nature, which includes "consciousness" as an attribute of at least one natural species." ___180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/867837
Note --- The First Cause speculation is not about any particular "aspect" of Nature, but about all aspects of Nature : the Cosmos as a whole living (dynamic, if you prefer) system that was born and is fated to die. Who or What caused this system of Causation?


PS___ 2 years ago : If a first cause is necessary
" Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence." — Philosophim
I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. ___Gnomon

[Gnomon]

This is what I think 180 Proof failed to understand. He's an intelligent person, but I believe was convinced the argument was trying to say something it wasn't. The major struggle I've had in this OP was getting people break free of the"first cause is a God" argument that has been locked in debate for decades. It can be hard to shake for some. My hopes were to get both atheists and theists to see that we're missing an incredible point in the midst of the overwhelming concern about proving/disproving deities. — Philosophim

In his smirking reply to my post above --- "possibilities that go beyond space-time" --- ↪180 Proof
indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} That working hypothesis may be necessary for the purposes of Empirical science, but it is self-limiting for the explorations of theoretical Philosophy. That would be like Columbus assuming the conventional belief of the era, that there is nothing over the horizon to the west of Europe.

That space-time-is-all presumption may be a convenient position for a confirmed Immanentist, but may also be a self-imposed blindfold for someone who is not so sure that what-you-see-is-all-there-is. Ironically, what 180 is missing, due to his no-god prejudice, is that the OP says nothing about going beyond the bounds of space-time to find a First Cause. It even specifically warns against "Infinite causality", which some might identify with a biblical god. So, I'd be interested in his astute argument for-or-against the notion of a logically necessary First Cause, for a chain-of-events that is integral-with and directly-connected to the physical sequences of space-time*1. In other words, a Self-Caused sequence, or Spontaneous Generation. Did our world have a First Cause or merely a First Step?*3

Many cosmologists have concluded that our bubble of space-time is bounded by a mysterious energetic beginning and an evanescent entropic ending*2. Some have postulated that the Big Bang was not an explosion from nothing into something, but merely an expansion of some pre-existing matter squished into a dimensionless mathematical Singularity. So, the experts disagree on the necessity for a First Cause, versus a resurrection from a previous incarnation of an un-caused (self-existent) eternally-cycling Multiverse. The M-verse has some basic characteristics of a traditional god, but presumably it's merely a cosmic mechanism without Consciousness or Entention. Sort of like a driverless taxi.

Is it possible to ontologically understand the Big Bang theory without considering a context of "possibilities that go beyond space-time"?



*1. Big Bang Self-Caused?
The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astr ... erse-begin

*2. Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___ Steven Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lec ... ng-of-time

*3. Space & Time are Matter & Energy :
That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing.
https://alasdairf.medium.com/are-matter ... dbf7d411e5
Note --- Space-time is not a real thing, but the concept entails both Matter and Energy. Without Matter, there is no Space. Without Change, there is no Time.

[Gnomon]

↪180 Proof indicates his prejudicial opinion that there can be nothing outside of space-time. {how do he know?} — Gnomon

I did not claim or imply this.

As I've stated in several of our exchanges, Gnomon, my metaphysical position more or less agrees with Spinoza's: there is no "outside of space-time" (or "beyond" with "possibilities") insofar as nature is unbounded in all directions (i.e. natura naturans is eternal and infinite) ... just as there is no edge of the Earth off of which one can fall, no north of the North Pole, etc.

Stop making up sh*t. — 180 Proof


OK. I'll let you speak for yourself. Contrary to my interpretation, you're saying that "there can be something outside of spacetime?" Yes or No? After you have corrected my understanding of your metaphysical position on space-time vs eternity question, please answer the questions below.

If I mis-interpreted your Immanentism position on the all-inclusive, no exceptions, expanse of space-time, I will apologize in this thread. But you would have to either reject the Big Bang theory outright, or explain the obvious implication of a time before space-time --- i.e. beyond the scope of scientific evidence. Unfortunately, unless you have slam-dunk & drop the mike evidence or argument, that discussion might require a new thread of its own. In any case, your earthbound "north of north pole" argument*1 is irrelevant to modern philosophical & cosmological conceptions of Space-Time.

Do you think Stephen Hawking was "making up sh*t" when he said that "Time . . . had a beginning"*2? Do you accept that a sequence with a beginning must have an end --- not to mention a First Cause? Do you agree that beginnings & endings are set boundaries, that logically imply possibilities beyond the boundaries*3? Was Hawking spreading "woo-woo"?

My metaphysical position also generally agrees with Spinoza . . . but with one scientific objection : in the 17th century, he plausibly assumed that "deus sive natura" was eternal, hence unbounded. But 20th century science found evidence to contradict that presumption*4. Which concept of "space-time" is compatible with your "metaphysical position" : 17th or 20th century? Again, I ask {how do he know?}


*1. How valid is "What is North of North Pole?" argument? :
"It is not an argument. It is an (imperfect, as always) analogy." ___Victor Toth
https://www.quora.com/How-valid-is-What ... e-argument

*2. The Beginning of Time :
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. ___Stephen Hawking
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lec ... ng-of-time

*3. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
In particular Roger Penrose has developed a view that the period since the Big Bang should be called an aeon, and that there were earlier aeons each infinitely long. This makes the Big Bang a kind of transition period between two aeons.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-big-bang
Note --- This is not my view. Simply an expert's opinion/conjecture that the BB had a precursor. He may be "making up sh*t", but he has pristine math to back it up.

*4. Immanence in Space & Time :
As a prime example of a transcendent conception of space in this paper, Isaac Newton’s theories of space will be discussed as well as the mathematical framework within which Newton developed his physics: Euclidean space. On the other hand, as a role model for an immanent conception of space, Einstein’s general relativity will be analyzed as well as the geometry that lies behind this theory: Riemann’s differential geometry. . . .
Unlike transcendent conceptions of space, in which space provides a super-structure for the organization of bodies and events that change over time, immanent conceptions of space do not rely on the presumption that space exists prior to bodies.
https://www.performancephilosophy.org/j ... ew/146/262

[Gnomon]

A first cause is logically necessary

First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary.
But this necessity kills causality itself: it's actually a problem in Spinoza's works that you probably already heard of. Since the cause cannot not produce the effect, it means the effect already lies in the cause somehow (and it means that time is a kind of illusion for Spinoza but that's another matter).
But then: how can the cause produce an effect, since the effect already exists?
Therefore, nothing can really be produced, and this kills causality. Or rather, it shows that causality is contradictory: causality can exist thanks to the absence of causality, and vice versa. That, of course, is a very short presentation of this subject (source: Brief Solutions to Philosophical Problems Using a Hegelian Method, Solution 10) — LFranc

David Hume addressed the philosophical Causation Problem by noting that, in Physics there is no Causation, only Change*1. Yet, the human mind attributes the Power of Causation (potential) to some unseen force. By the same reasoning, there are no Laws or Logic in the physical world. But the human mind seems to inherently "conceive" of consecutive Change as the effect of some prior physical input of Energy. It's a Belief, not a Fact.

Hence, for both Physicists and Philosophers, Causation is logically "supposed to be necessary" --- to explain an observed Difference --- even when the original impetus is not empirically observable : e.g. First Cause of all change in the world. Therefore, I suppose that "the Effect lies in the Cause" in the sense of Aristotle's Potential. Which again, is a metaphysical concept, not a physical force or object. Likewise, Einstein's "space warped by gravity" is a metaphysical concept, which some imagine to be an empirical observation. Consequently, philosophers need not expect to have their belief about Causation confirmed by empirical evidence. We can only argue about the plausibility of the logical inference from difference, n'est ce pas?

Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause.


*1. What does Hume say about causality?:
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Metaphysical Primacy :
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes studies of the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, consciousness, space and time, necessity, actuality, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

↪ucarr

↪Philosophim

[Gnomon]

After going to the doctor with mild symptoms, you're told your spinal column is infected with pneumococci bacteria. Since it's believed this infection causes spinal meningitis, you're advised to immediately undergo an aggressive program of antibiotics within the intensive care unit. Explain why you wouldn't dismiss this diagnosis as uncertain causal-belief-not-fact and go home untreated, or would you go home? Would you go home untreated, betting on fact-based-mind-over-uncertain causal-belief? — ucarr

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. Correlation does not prove Causation. If you don't agree, you can argue with Hume. From that philosophical perspective, the First Cause is an abstract concept, not a white-haired old Deity with a magic touch.


*1. What does Hume say about causality? :
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

hqdefault.jpg

[Gnomon]

I prefer the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Conjecture² instead. — 180 Proof

I can see why Hawking's spherical universe "conjecture" fits your Immanent belief system better than the Big Bang theory's exploding pin-point (Singularity) imagery. To each his own.

I suspect Hawking was merely echoing Einstein's god-like description of the universe --- as seen from outside --- imagined as a four-dimensional sphere : "finite" in volume, but "unbounded" in topology. That imagery suited his mathematical purposes, just as the counter-intuitive Block Time (eternalism) model illustrated his concept that our perception of dualistic Space (matter) & Time (energy) is merely a common-sense interpretation of monistic Space-Time. But, my layman's philosophical purpose & preference is different from Einstein's genius mathematical intention.

GOD'S {and Einstein's} VIEW OF HIS FINITE BUT UNBOUNDED CREATION
sphere.jpg

COSMOLOGIST'S MODEL OF BIG BANG
4.jpg?ip=x480

[Gnomon]

I think you missed the point of my philosophical distinction between inferred Belief (certitude) in a Cause, and a scientifically-proven Fact of the Agent (bacteria) of an Effect (meningitis). The footnote gave the context*1. David Hume defined the concept of Causation as an inferred mental relationship, not a physical thing*2. — Gnomon


You and Hume characterize causation as deduction? — ucarr

Well, technically, Deduction from data*1 is just one way to understand Change in the world. It begins with observation of a general principle ((transformation ; metamorphosis) and subtracts (abstracts) everything that is not consistently associated with observed Effects. When Induction and Abduction also agree on the Deduction, we can be pretty sure that the Cause and Effect are correlated by some transformational Principle, that we call "Causation" --- or in some cases "Agency". And yet, due to the limitations of data and reasoning, mere Correlation of variables does not prove Causation. We could be missing something.

Aristotle called that agent of change "Morphe" (form). Other ancient thinkers used the term "Spirit" to label that invisible causal Agency, but moderns tend to use the term "Energy" or "Power". Now, in the 21st century, another term has been applied to describe physical Transformation : Information*2 --- or as I call it in my thesis : EnFormAction*3 (the power to transform). The bottom line here, is that Causation is not something we can see or touch or dissect physically. But we can analyze it by means of Reason. Hence, the agency of transformation must be rationally inferred or deduced.

*1. Deduction of Causation :
There are three types of causal reasoning: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is the use of data and arguments to come to a guaranteed conclusion. Induction is when conclusions are drawn based on a limited set of data.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/causal ... mples.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

[Gnomon]

Do you assess this lack of proof as a metaphysical issue? — ucarr


Only if it leads to false beliefs. Most of the time, correlation is "close enough for government work". But technically, in logic and statistics, conflation of correlation with causation is a fallacy. In complex situations, other factors may disguise the "true" cause {see stork/baby image}.

Gnomon Reply to LFranc in this thread :
"Therefore, in this thread, we are ultimately arguing about a metaphysical principle*2 to explain all changes in the world. So, if we track all physical changes back to the Big Bang, and stop, we have merely defined the First Effect, not the First Cause."

Correlation often, but not always, implies Causation :
It is certain, that not only in philosophy, but even in common life, we may attain the knowledge of a particular cause merely by one experiment, provided it be made with judgment, and after a careful removal of all foreign and superfluous circumstances. Now as after one experiment of this kind, the mind, upon the appearance either of the cause or the effect, can draw an inference concerning the existence of its correlative; and as a habit can never be acquired merely by one instance; it may be thought, that belief cannot in this case be esteemed the effect of custom. ___David Hume
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questio ... -causation

7714231-Randall-Munroe-Quote-Correlation-doesn-t-imply-causation-but-it.jpg

f1f6cafb-6444-453f-a5c5-8f603ab41a23_SP+562+-+Correlation+is+not+causation.png?auto=compress,format

[Gnomon]

I'm asking if work towards finding a proof is more appropriate for the philosopher than for the scientist. — ucarr

What kind of "proof" --- for a "metaphysical issue" --- would you expect to find, as a philosopher? Can we send a philosophical space-probe back in time to find the empirical First Cause of the Cosmos? Can a valid logical argument prove the truth (existence/reality) of a metaphysical belief?

Mathematical "proof" is simply logical consistency (derived from true premises), and Empirical "proof" is based on abundance of non-contradictory physical evidence. Philosophical "proof", though, is a logical argument that is accepted as true in a convinced mind. But when two philosophers argue, the discussion can go-on indefinitely, without reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion. So, I would say that finding slam-dunk proof --- for a Prime Mover --- is in-appropriate for mathematicians & scientists & philosophers.

For example, in Science Ideated, Bernardo Kastrup argues with two philosophers on the metaphysical existence of Consciousness : a process or qualia, not a physical thing. One argues that "consciousness doesn't happen, it's a mistaken construct", And the other says, "our introspective systems monitor these neural processes but misrepresent them as a simple quality". Have any of these thinkers proven anything? Is your belief or disbelief in your own personal Awareness based on objective evidence, or on personal experience --- the very non-thing in question?

PS___ First Cause arguments are mathematical/logical in that they are true only if the premises are true. Unfortunately, in this special case of reasoning, the First Cause is also the Premise in question.


Can you prove anything in philosophy?
It's a common misconception that you can prove whatever you like in philosophy. In reality, it's hard to find completely convincing arguments which conclusively establish some conclusion.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-prove-any ... philosophy

Is it ever possible to really prove anything in philosophy? :
Richard Rorty saw philosophy as a tool that you used to solve problems. He agreed that you couldn't definitively prove things in philosophy
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... ything_in/

What is the best evidence or proof for metaphysics? :
Metaphysics means what is “after” or “beyond” physics. So almost by definition, is outside the domain of physical evidence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best- ... etaphysics