uncaused causes

[Elioenai26]

Sure, if that evidence can be presented, you are correct in your statement.

The problem is, that evidence has not been presented, so the concept is not even remotely plausible.



You would require further evidence to tie it to a specific god rather than just a God in general. If your first point isn't plausible, this point is even less so.




This is absolutely correct.



Yes and No.... Namely, no to the Philosophical argumentation, and yes to the scientific.

The matter of the existence or non existence of something is a scientific matter, not a philosophical one. You can make a perfectly philosophical, logical justification for belief.... however, without evidence, you still have no actual reason to believe. This is why it's a scientific matter.





That's what apologists do... Make up logical and philosophical arguments with no backing in reality (and usually full of logical flaws). They then pick and choose the science that doesn't directly contradict their views, or mislabel non-scientific things as scientific to try to back their case.

There is not one piece of scientific data that supports the idea of a God or divine creator at all, period

On the other hand, we look for actual evidence, actual reason to believe. If we find some, we will believe. Until then, we dismiss the idea as unsound.

Do scientists use philosophy and logic as tools in understanding the world in which they live?

 

[variant]

In the absence of evidence for multiple uncaused causes, it is incorrect to suppose them. This is what is stated by Occam’s Razor – that one should posit the minimum number of causes sufficient to explain a particular phenomenon.

If we apply Occam’s razor:

"The universe is uncaused"

Is simpler than:

"The universe is caused by another uncaused entity"

They both require at least one uncaused entity.

So, you can't apply Occam’s razor if you wish to posit God.

In other words, we should not multiply causes unnecessarily. Thus, in the absence of evidence for them, it would not make sense to suppose the existence of multiple Causes if one Cause is a sufficient explanation.

We don't know that the universe CAN be explained by a single uncaused cause either because is it not explained by it.

It is presumptuous even if we know the universe must start with uncaused things to expect it to be a singular thing or event.

Also, this Uncaused Cause could not be an unintelligent or impersonal force. For if it were possible for some sort of timeless, impersonal force to cause something, it’s effect would also be timeless. In order for a timeless force to create an effect in time, it would have to intend it, and intention implies Mind.

That is just blather. The cause of the universe is free to also create time.

Therefore, it is logically impossible to have two omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, uncaused causes.

Therefore? Where did you prove this?

If it was by Occam’s Razor:

NO NO NO. Occam’s Razor doesn’t disprove anything it says what is more likely.

Two uncaused causes cannot exist because if they did, then one would not be uncaused at all, but caused by the uncaused omnipotent cause.

Where did you get omnipotent? (here to for unmentioned)

And why can't multiple causes happen simultaionously?

Are you arguing via lack of the ability to imagine you are wrong?

You cannot have two all-powerful beings or two all-knowing beings. The attributes such as all-knowing, and all-powerful among others, by nature make it impossible for more than one being to possess them.

You have proven no such entities or, as of yet, even mentioned them. This is just an assumption of yours.

The response that this is special pleading is fallacious for two main reasons:

1. The greatest conceivable being has to be uncaused by definition because the greatest conceivable being cannot be caused by another.

What if the greatest conceivable thing is the universe? (which in this case would be uncaused).

2. This is not special pleading for God because that is precisely what atheists always have said about the universe, matter, and energy—the universe is eternal, and uncaused.

It is special pleading for God IF you say things can't be uncaused and then introduce an uncaused God. That is the definition of special pleading. If the universe is free to be uncaused then God needn't exist.

If atheists maintain that it is special pleading to say that God is uncaused (which is what He is by definition being the greatest conceivable Being), then they must also maintain that it is special pleading to say that the universe is uncaused!

You need to look up the definition of special pleading.

If the argument begins that "everything" needs a cause then it can not end with a god that doesn’t.

The argument from the atheist perspective would not be that "everything" needs a cause. The universe not needing an ultimate cause would show this premise to be untrue just as God shows this premise to be untrue. Ultimately you can’t make the argument that everything needs a cause because it is never a true premise.

If you are FINE with special pleading then there is no reason to assert a god beyond the uncaused universe as I already discussed.

The simple fact of the matter is that your argument can't get there from here without special pleading.

This quote is simple to show to be true.

None of us caused ourselves to be. We are contingent upon something greater than ourselves. The world did not cause itself to be, nor did the solar system, nor did our galaxy, nor did the billions of other galaxies, nor did the universe itself.

Ex nihilo nihil fit states that from nothing, nothing comes. But the universe is something, therefore it could not have come from nothing. There exists something beyond the universe. This makes the universe contingent upon this Uncaused Cause (which is beyond space and time) for it's existence.

It is true because you have assumed it to be true you mean? You have adequate experience of what is in the universe to declare that none or all of it could be it's own cause?

Being pompous about your assumptions doesn’t make them more correct.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are not paying attention to what has been asked nor what has been given in response.

His question was:

Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

I have answered this question Mr. Ellis.

His question was indeed that.... your answer was:

Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists maintain that the theistic God is in fact the best explanation for the cause of the universe according to the data that we have about it's composition, order, and initial beginning. The theistic God is the uncaused cause you made mention of



My response was it's irrelevant what those people say, as they have not said how or why their views are justified. Simply replying with "Well, the Apologists say this!" is meaningless.

Furthermore, I said Christian apologists can't even tie that uncaused cause to their own God. They can only tie it to a higher power of some kind, and then jump to the conclusion that it's their God.

 

[variant]

Maybe you can explain for him, what his post was about, I still do not understand how what he said related to what I said.

I've explained myself twice on the matter and no one else seems to be so mystified.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think there must be one uncaused causer (not necessarily God), but which I mean the the fundamental ground of existence. Part 1 (and Part 2?) of Spinoza's 'Ethics' might address this well.

I guess my question if there were two or more would be 'what divides them'? It seems there must be a reason why there is more than one. One seems to be much simpler. Whatever the reason is for the division would seem to be the true uncaused cause. It really depends what you mean by caused. If you mean the logical finishing point where no more questions can be asked then I think there must only be one.

To even say there is only 'one' is deceptive. To say there is only one uncaused cause could just mean that is only one 'Everything'.

So I think the words 'uncaused cause' really need to be clarified more to give a definite answer.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do scientists use philosophy and logic as tools in understanding the world in which they live?

When it comes to determining scientific matters:

Logic, yes. Philosophy, no.

They may use philosophy in certain aspects of their life however, but science is based on empirical evidence and testable claims. Philosophy does not deal with those.

 

[variant]

When it comes to determining scientific matters:

Logic, yes. Philosophy, no.

They may use philosophy in certain aspects of their life however, but science is based on empirical evidence and testable claims. Philosophy does not deal with those.

The philosophy of science does.

 

[Elioenai26]

If we apply Occam’s razor:

"The universe is uncaused"

Is simpler than:

"The universe is caused by another uncaused entity"

They both require at least one uncaused entity.

So, you can't apply Occam’s razor if you wish to posit God.

It has been shown logically, philosophically, and scientifically that the universe had a beginning at some point in the distant past Therefore the universe is caused. If you dont believe me, read Stephen Hawking.

Therefore your application of the Razor to proposition one is useless.

If the argument begins that "everything" needs a cause then it can not end with a god that doesn’t.

The argument does not begin with "everything" needs a cause. I do not know where you got that from?

 

[Elioenai26]

When it comes to determining scientific matters:

Logic, yes. Philosophy, no.

They may use philosophy in certain aspects of their life however, but science is based on empirical evidence and testable claims. Philosophy does not deal with those.

I will use logic with you Mr. Ellis, I hope you will be able to understand it. I shall make it simple.

Can something come from nothing?

 

[Davian]

I will use logic with you Mr. Ellis, I hope you will be able to understand it. I shall make it simple.

Can something come from nothing?

Is it possible for there to be nothing?

 

[variant]

It has been shown logically, philosophically, and scientifically that the universe had a beginning at some point in the distant past Therefore the universe is caused. If you dont believe me, read Stephen Hawking.

Therefore your application of the Razor to proposition one is useless.

That would be a misunderstanding of what Hawkings proposes. I am guessing you know this because Hawkings himself dosen't think the universe requires a creator.

It can be shown that the universe as it exists today regresses to a beginning.

We do not (and can not) know what happened at that beginning (at that instant) or "before", as it would be speculation where even the most theoretical math breaks down. Hawkings is a brilliant man but even he knows he dosen't know that.

If the universe existed before that point as a timeless entity then it certianly dosen't need an external cause, it just always existed, and this is especially true if time began simultaniously with the creation of the physical universe.

Since we don't know we are left with two alternatives:

A. The universe is uncaused or

B. The universe is caused by an external cause that is uncaused.

Tell me which does the razor preferr?

The argument does not begin with "everything" needs a cause. I do not know where you got that from?

It's the origional form of the argument. The one you are familiar with is an attempt to bury the special pleading.

Some things are in motion
Nothing can be the cause of its own movement
All things in motion were put into motion by another
We cannot have an infinite regression of movers
There must be a first mover
The first mover is God

This argument stems from the general rule that everything needs a cause. It was a bad argument when Aquinas first envisioned it.

(what moves the first mover?)

Remember special pleading is not a problem if you can justify it. The problem is you have to justify the supernatural entity you envoked here.

 

[variant]

Is it possible for there to be nothing?

Good question.

It is always interesting that people assume that "nothing" is even possible or at all required.

 

[Elioenai26]

That would be a misunderstanding of what Hawkings proposes. I am guessing you know this because Hawkings himself dosen't think the universe requires a creator.

It can be shown that the universe as it exists today regresses to a beginning.

We do not (and can not) know what happened at that beginning (at that instant) or "before", as it would be speculation where even the most theoretical math breaks down. Hawkings is a brilliant man but even he knows he dosen't know that.

If the universe existed before that point as a timeless entity then it certianly dosen't need an external cause, it just always existed, and this is especially true if time began simultaniously with the creation of the physical universe.

Since we don't know we are left with two alternatives:

A. The universe is uncaused or

B. The universe is caused by an external cause that is uncaused.

Tell me which does the razor preferr?



It's the origional form of the argument. The one you are familiar with is an attempt to bury the special pleading.



This argument stems from the general rule that everything needs a cause. It was a bad argument when Aquinas first envisioned it.

(what moves the first mover?)

Remember special pleading is not a problem if you can justify it. The problem is you have to justify the supernatural entity you envoked here.

Are you telling me that you maintain that the universe is uncaused?

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I proceed any further.

 

[Elioenai26]

Good question.

It is always interesting that people assume that "nothing" is even possible or at all required.

Variant, im going to need you to really pay attention here.

"Nothing" is not our focus. We are not concerned with the metaphysical properties of "nothing" for "nothing" is a concept or idea used in the thesis which states that nothing comes from nothing I.e. ex nihilo nihil fit.

In asking the question: can something come from nothing, the answer is either yes or no.

Don't make this harder than what it is. It is quite simple.

 

[quatona]

I think there must be one uncaused causer (not necessarily God), but which I mean the the fundamental ground of existence. Part 1 (and Part 2?) of Spinoza's 'Ethics' might address this well.

I guess my question if there were two or more would be 'what divides them'? It seems there must be a reason why there is more than one. One seems to be much simpler. Whatever the reason is for the division would seem to be the true uncaused cause. It really depends what you mean by caused. If you mean the logical finishing point where no more questions can be asked then I think there must only be one.

To even say there is only 'one' is deceptive. To say there is only one uncaused cause could just mean that is only one 'Everything'.

So I think the words 'uncaused cause' really need to be clarified more to give a definite answer.

Good points, I think.
By "uncaused cause" I was referring to that which is postulated as logically necessary by those who propose it - and, of course, this "uncaused cause" is defined by hardly any more than this logical necessity. If I understand it correctly, the argument tries to solve the problem that our observations within the universe suggest causality, yet the resulting infinite regress is somewhat intellectually unsatisfactory. Consequently, it is assumed that the universe itself is not necessarily subject to the rules observed within it; IOW there must be a realm beyond the universe in which uncaused causes are possible.
(On a side note: I think that this argument is pretty lame - because once we postulate such a realm which isn´t subject to the rules as observed within the universe, all other sorts of "explanations" become possible; e.g. the universe could have popped into existence from nothing, or the universe itself can be an uncaused cause, or...). But this is not what I wanted to discuss here).

However, I am always amazed how quickly people seem to jump to conclusions about this "uncaused cause", once they have just finished this rather generic argument: an "uncaused cause" must be intelligent, it must be intentional, it must be "the fundamental ground of existence" etc.etc.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

Here is a good discussion of unmoved movers in Aristotle:

"The Unmoved-Mover" in Aristotle's Metaphysics


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In defense of the existence of a (generic) god we often hear the argument that an "uncaused cause/unmoved mover" is necessary as an explanation for the existence of the physical world.
Leaving aside for a moment all the weaknesses of this argument:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

Occam's Razor for one.

Something else that you could do, is to just subsume varios different causes under just one. That has more to with how you look at it. For example: 7 Billion people vs Humanity

 

[Elioenai26]

Occam's Razor for one.

Something else that you could do, is to just subsume varios different causes under just one. That has more to with how you look at it. For example: 7 Billion people vs Humanity

If you will share with us your view on how the universe began we would be delighted.

Because the fact that it did begin at some point in the distant past is an accepted scientific fact.

So enlighten us as to how this took place.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If you will share with us your view on how the universe began we would be delighted.

Because the fact that it did begin at some point in the distant past is an accepted scientific fact.

So enlighten us as to how this took place.

Huh. I think I was more or less on topic. Why I should now addess cosmological argumentation is beyond me.

Plus, I don't understand how come that you already allude to "accepted scientific fact" and then ask me on top of that. Do you expect something else from me than what you could for instance read on Wikipedia?

Or do you need help understanding apologetic sophistry? I might be of help with that, but I am not sure this is the right thread.


ETA:
Using the plural when talking about oneself always sounds very presumptious or deceptive.

 

[KCfromNC]

It has been shown logically, philosophically, and scientifically that the universe had a beginning at some point in the distant past Therefore the universe is caused. If you dont believe me, read Stephen Hawking.

I don't, so I did :

"The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang,"

Stephen Hawking Explains Creation, Big Bang Sans God

What Hawking says is a lot different than what you claim he says. How much have you actually researched what you are claiming in this thread?