Only two options for the origin of the universe

[Archaeopteryx]

We know a cause for a given effect is non-physical if the effect is all matter, energy, and the space-time manifold itself i.e. the universe.

A material cause could not possibly be the explanation for the creation of all matter.

If you are talking about the creation of all matter from nothing then the causal principle need not apply, since it describes the interaction of matter in spacetime, not its creation from nothing. This is another problem with how the cosmological argument is used: equivocation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): "God is a spirit."

I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.

In the same way that the Divine Flame does not require fuel or a source of ignition, and yet still is a flame.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

...the causal principle need not apply, since it describes the interaction of matter in spacetime, not its creation from nothing.

Why think this?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In the same way that the Divine Flame does not require fuel or a source of ignition, and yet still is a flame.

How is this analogous with the concept of God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why think this?

Because the causal principle describes ex materia creation. If applied consistently, therefore, it does not lead us to creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is this analogous with the concept of God?

It's not analogous to your concept of God, but your concept of God could be wrong. If the Divine Flame is real, and we have just as much reason to think that it is real as the God of your concept, then you are wrong.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Because the causal principle describes ex materia creation. If applied consistently, therefore, it does not lead us to creatio ex nihilo.

You have a reference for your claim that the causal principle only pertains to ex materia creation?

I have asked you why you think this several times and you keep rephrasing your response.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have a reference for your claim that the causal principle only pertains to ex materia creation?

I have asked you why you think this several times and you keep rephrasing your response.

Yes, all of experience.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's not analogous to your concept of God, but your concept of God could be wrong. If the Divine Flame is real, and we have just as much reason to think that it is real as the God of your concept, then you are wrong.

Possibilities come cheap. And conditionals need to be satisfied.

Why think my concept of God is wrong?

What evidence do you have for this Divine Flame?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Possibilities come cheap. And conditionals need to be satisfied.

Why think my concept of God is wrong?

What evidence do you have for this Divine Flame?

The same evidence you have for your God.

 

[bhsmte]

Possibilities come cheap. And conditionals need to be satisfied.

Why think my concept of God is wrong?

What evidence do you have for this Divine Flame?

Is it possible your concept of God is wrong, or is that impossible?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes, all of experience.

my friend i have no doubt that in your experience you have observed effects coming to be as results of material causes.

but how does this fact lead you to the conclusion that the universe has no cause?

Why is this not a non-sequitur?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Is it possible your concept of God is wrong, or is that impossible?

It is possible I am wrong in the sense that there would be nothing logically impossible about me being wrong.

what does this prove?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The same evidence you have for your God.

ok good. present these various philosophical arguments for this Divine Flame so I can have a look at them.

 

[bhsmte]

It is possible I am wrong in the sense that there would be nothing logically impossible about me being wrong.

what does this prove?

Why do you think I was trying to "prove" something?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

my friend i have no doubt that in your experience you have observed effects coming to be as results of material causes.

but how does this fact lead you to the conclusion that the universe has no cause?

Why is this not a non-sequitur?

Where did I say that the universe had no cause or requires no explanation?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Why do you think I was trying to "prove" something?

oh ok...pardon me then...you had no point in asking me what you did.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ok good. present these various philosophical arguments for this Divine Flame so I can have a look at them.

Quite simple. It's the Kalam, plus an additional statement noting that cause is an immaterial, timelessly burning Divine Flame that requires no fuel or source of ignition.

 

[bhsmte]

oh ok...pardon me then...you had no point in asking me what you did.

Ever hear of asking for clarification of one's position?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Where did I say that the universe had no cause or requires no explanation?

lol....

you have been arguing that the principle "being cannot come from nonbeing" does not apply to the universe.

why is this not the same as saying the universe comes from nonbeing or no cause?