Lazarus Long
Active Member
First cause is not logical at all it is special pleading to eliminate logic from the discussion.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First cause is not logical at all it is special pleading to eliminate logic from the discussion.If one wants to posit a reason for existence, First Cause, and that, with intent, is the only logical (even scientifically possible) candidate.
(There are a few other suppositions out there, but they aren't exactly cogent)
Because First Cause necessarily caused everything else, or it is not First Cause. If there is anything of itself existing from outside of First Cause, let's say some physical or logical principle, then First Cause is subject to that principle, or at the very least, co-generative with it, co-causing, and so not First Cause after all, being subject to the principle of their co-existence.Why does First Cause have to have authority over anything?
As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.First cause is not logical at all it is special pleading to eliminate logic from the discussion.
As a possibility then Magic is as likely, since science doesn't have the answer.As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.
So far, as they claim, what was once considered magic has always turned out to be simply physics. In my pov, what we consider material or physical (as opposed to metaphysical) is no less miracle than the metaphysical, since it is all naturally caused by First Cause.As a possibility then Magic is as likely, since science doesn't have the answer.
No! It really is Magic.So far, as they claim, what was once considered magic has always turned out to be simply physics. In my pov, what we consider material or physical (as opposed to metaphysical) is no less miracle than the metaphysical, since it is all naturally caused by First Cause.
To me, it makes more sense to say that such things are "unusual to us".
Firstly scientific thinkers don't pose questions about 'existence itself' .. that's a philosophical question which has never yet been answered by any of history's notable philosophical thinkers.As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.
I didn't ask why your god must have authority over things, I asked why First Cause must have authority over anything. Your answer presupposes that the First Cause had a plan and is omniscient. That's nothing more than an assertion which you have not supported in any way.Because First Cause necessarily caused everything else, or it is not First Cause. If there is anything of itself existing from outside of First Cause, let's say some physical or logical principle, then First Cause is subject to that principle, or at the very least, co-generative with it, co-causing, and so not First Cause after all, being subject to the principle of their co-existence.
But first cause does not have to be Omniscient, conscious, or even animate, and it doesn’t have to be singular either; there could be multiple first causes; do you agree? If not, why not?My apologies, I was in a hurry and only meant to point out that you and the maker are completely different --so your use of a hypothetical concerning yourself is irrelevant to as to what the creator would do.
As for First Cause being necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.
From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:But first cause does not have to be Omniscient, conscious, or even animate, and it doesn’t have to be singular either; there could be multiple first causes; do you agree? If not, why not?
lolNo! It really is Magic.
Off-topic side note: this is not a mystery for evolutionary biologists, so it makes a poor example in this context.(There are also, of course, the complications of just how the co-emergence works --same thing that makes Darwinian evolution hard to understand --just how did complex co-dependent systems work as incomplete?
Mystery, perhaps not. Complex, yes. Very complex. (Hard to shave this one with Ockham's Razor)Off-topic side note: this is not a mystery for evolutionary biologists, so it makes a poor example in this context.
Lots of words which convey nothing more than assertions and special pleading. Really not convincing at all.From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:
First Cause can not be multiple, because then there would be principles in operation from outside of them, thus, whatever caused those principles would have to be First Cause.
First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause). 2/ Even if one wants to say inanimate First Cause is caused by chance, then they admit to cause from outside itself, (as though Chance could logically cause anything). 3/ Some have said inanimate First Cause could have made itself --what-- according to its programming? --But to say that even God made himself exist is logical nonsense. First Cause simply is. (Even existence "proceeds" from First Cause, and not the other way around). 4/ Some have said that inanimate First Cause could be co-emergent with its principles of operation and existence. While an intriguing thought, even then, the principle of co-emergence is external to its beginnings. (There are also, of course, the complications of just how the co-emergence works --same thing that makes Darwinian evolution hard to understand --just how did complex co-dependent systems work as incomplete? The worst complication, of course, is to show that Existence itself was co-emergent, if there had been no such thing "logically (as in cause-and-effect) before".) 5/ I only mention this because it is true --others have shown that there are many other problems to overcome to claim that First Cause may be inanimate. I am not well versed on all of them.
First Cause would have to be conscious, as animate, for the same reason it cannot be inanimate --if not conscious, it would be subject to principles from outside itself. If someone wants to be smart and say those complex principles and even operational creation itself could be produced from an unconscious (or even unintelligent) animate existence (some have even speculated the universe itself, or universe of universes could be this animate existence) with no reason to do so, they invoke chance accident, or true randomness as causes, which (again) are logically self-contradictory --not to mention that were Chance and Randomness to be real, they would present from outside this supposed unconscious First Cause.
First Cause must logically be omniscient or it is subject to facts from outside itself, (even if it caused those facts far down the chain of cause-and-effect, but did not consider the logical extrapolation of cause-and-effect past a certain point, it is still a fact "returning to it unknown", so to speak), therefore not First Cause after all, since First Cause cannot be subject to facts from outside itself. First Cause is the ONLY totally sovereign, un-caused, independent, source of all other things.
For example....?Lots of words which convey nothing more than assertions and special pleading. Really not convincing at all.
"First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause)."For example....?
If the first cause were matter and energy, what are these principles outside of material and energy operating from outside of them?From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:
First Cause can not be multiple, because then there would be principles in operation from outside of them, thus, whatever caused those principles would have to be First Cause.
If material and energy were the inanimate first cause, what are these principles outside of material and energy that is governing it?First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause).
Are there no principles determining their form and effect? The way they operate? How did they come to be --you want to say they "just are"? If they "just are" then how do they have any characteristics? Your thinking falls apart there. Something made them.If the first cause were matter and energy, what are these principles outside of material and energy operating from outside of them?
If material and energy were the inanimate first cause, what are these principles outside of material and energy that is governing it?
Let’s answer these questions first then we can get to the rest later
Not animate First Cause, no. It is not of the same order of all (or any) subsequent effects; the difference is as stark as eternal vs temporal."First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause)."
Are animate things not governed by those same principles?
No.Are there no principles determining their form and effect? The way they operate?
"Came to be" implies a beginning. If something always existed, by definition it never came to be.How did they come to be
Different types of energy and materials acting upon each other; each with an eternal existence and in a constant state of motion.--you want to say they "just are"? If they "just are" then how do they have any characteristics?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?