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.
[
No, that´s not what I was saying.
No, it´s different because at this point we are already under the assumption that there was no time/space/matter... - to which our concept "causation" is related.
If you go back and read my post more carefully, you´ll find that that´s not what I concluded.
We don´t know what a/the universe needs, in the absence of time, space and matter.
The concept "cause" is meaningful within the frame of reference of our universe (with space, time and matter). Only there we observe "causation" to be a governing priniciple, and on top we do not accept just any cause for anything. E.g. there is no observation of a non-material cause for a material event.
I have absolutely no idea what an "efficient cause" is supposed to be in the absence of time, matter and space.
Not my position.
1. So this is about what you find preferable? OK.
2. You haven´t even explained what "cause" is supposed to mean, in the absence of time, space and matter.
Sure, but I haven´t asserted that naturalism is true. So spare me the strawmen.
You asserted that not everything needs a cause. Yet, you appeal to the necessity of causation in this context. First thing you´d have to explain: Where did you pull the axiom that everything needs a cause, and what criteria do you use to justify exceptions from this rule.
The whole cause thing being required except for God of course, sounds like it may have come from good ole; Willy Craig.
Well it seems to me that either the universe has always existed and thus has no cause or it has not always existed.
Now if there is some third option feel free to put it on the table.
If not then we ask, if the universe has not always existed, what is the explanation for its existence?
1. It just came to be inexplicably.
2. It caused itself to come to be a la Dennett.
3. It was caused to come to be by an efficient cause.
Now if anyone wants to believe one or two they are more than welcome to do so. It seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable to one which requires me to maintain that something can cause itself to come into being. It seems that hypothesis three is also preferable to one which requires me to maintain that the universe just came to be without explanation.
So it seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable.
Assuming three, what shall we say?
1. I´m not sure how you are using the word "always" here. In a temporal meaning, by any chance?Well it seems to me that either the universe has always existed and thus has no cause or it has not always existed.
What bhsmte asked.3. It was caused to come to be by an efficient cause.
Since nothing in our experiences ever comes into being ex nihilo, we certainly are not in the position to postulate requirements for this "coming into being".Now if anyone wants to believe one or two they are more than welcome to do so. It seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable to one which requires me to maintain that something can cause itself to come into being.
Your idea that something immaterial caused matter, time and space into existence is just as exceptional as the competing options (caused itself, is uncaused, exists eternally and undergoes transformations, possibly more).It seems that hypothesis three is also preferable to one which requires me to maintain that the universe just came to be without explanation.
"Preferable" in that it supports your metaphysical preconceptions?So it seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable.
Btw. it is interesting that - when it comes to your assumed cause of the universe itself - your preferences change completely, out of a sudden: now you see the options for something existing eternally, being uncaused or self-caused, or for its existence to require no explanation.So it seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable.
Btw. it is interesting that - when it comes to your assumed cause of the universe itself - your preferences change completely, out of a sudden: now you see the options for something existing eternally, being uncaused or self-caused, or for its existence to require no explanation.
What do you mean by; "efficient cause"?
And what particular "efficient cause" did you have in mind and based on what evidence?
I googled efficient cause and got the following which I think shall suffice for our discussion:
The "efficient cause" of an object is equivalent to that which causes change and motion to start or stop (such as a painter painting a house) (see Aristotle, Physics II 3, 194b29). In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about.
What about my second question?
I had in mind an immaterial or incorporeal, timeless entity which possesses the potential to create the universe ex nihilo.
If the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then the universe has "always" existed in the sense that there is no time when the universe did not exist.Well it seems to me that either the universe has always existed and thus has no cause or it has not always existed.
Yes, there are other options. What about an efficient and material cause?If not then we ask, if the universe has not always existed, what is the explanation for its existence?
1. It just came to be inexplicably.
2. It caused itself to come to be a la Dennett.
3. It was caused to come to be by an efficient cause.
Now if anyone wants to believe one or two they are more than welcome to do so.
Why should we assume (3)?It seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable to one which requires me to maintain that something can cause itself to come into being. It seems that hypothesis three is also preferable to one which requires me to maintain that the universe just came to be without explanation.
So it seems to me that hypothesis three is more preferable.
Assuming three, what shall we say?
Did you also google 'material cause'?I googled efficient cause and got the following which I think shall suffice for our discussion:
The "efficient cause" of an object is equivalent to that which causes change and motion to start or stop (such as a painter painting a house) (see Aristotle, Physics II 3, 194b29). In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about.
Ok, I used to be under the impression that you wanted to make a sound, logical argument.My reasons for thinking that the cause of the universe is itself, uncaused are:
1. It seems to me preferable to maintain that there is not an infinite regress of causes.
2. It seems to me preferable to only posit as the cause of an effect, that which explains the effect.
3. From the aforementioned, it seems to me more preferable to maintain that there is one immaterial and timelessly sans the universe existing being which is necessarily existing i.e. uncaused, which brought the universe into existence.
It's not a leap. That is where he starts from, and works backwards from there.
How does one even logically leap to that step?
Define "bring into existence."Well it seems to me that it is not a leap, but simply a step.
I do not think it sound to posit that something made of matter could bring into existence all matter. It seems to me that in order for all matter to be brought into existence, the efficient cause could not have been a material entity. I do not consider that conclusion a "leap" at all.
I do not think it sound to posit that something that exists in space time could bring space time itself into existence. It seems to me that in order for space time to be brought into existence, the efficient cause could not have been in time and space causally prior to the coming into being of space time. Once again, I do not consider this inference a "leap" at all.
Define "bring into existence."
Are you referring to things beginning to exist ex materia or things beginning to exist ex nihilo?When I say things like "bring into existence" I intend to signify the idea of one causing something to exist that did not exist.
Are you referring to things beginning to exist ex materia or things beginning to exist ex nihilo?
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?