Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Ken-1122]

What characteristics do these two things possess such that we might differentiate between them?

What characteristic does one possess that the other doesn't?

Are they spatially separated?

I don't know. What's the difference between granite, vs sandstone, vs limestone?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I wouldn't go that far, I think it is also possible for multiple things to have always existed, each interacting with each other eternally.

My point is that the term, 'self-existing', or 'self-existent' implies, or at least allows for, present tense as well as past tense. @Moral Orel said it only implies past tense, i.e. they never came into being; I agree by definition they never came into being, but by definition also they are not dependent on anything but themselves for their continued/continuing existence.

That does not mean that they cannot cease to exist. That may be true, but it is entirely another argument; but here I am just saying that if they continue to exist, by definition they do so without assistance or other external power. 'Self-existent' means this.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't know. What's the difference between granite, vs sandstone, vs limestone?

My point being that if we can differentiate between them, such as we can with sandstone and limestone, then they must be made up of more fundamental parts. Therefore they're not self-existent, their existence is dependent upon the existence of those parts. We could get rid of these things by breaking them down into their constituent parts without eliminating existence itself. So they're not self-existent, they're composed of things.

That's one of the supposed characteristics of a self-existent thing...it can't be made up of parts. But if it's not made up of parts then there can't be two of them, because there would be absolutely no way to differentiate between them. And if there's absolutely no way to differentiate between them then they must be one and the same thing.

Thus there can only be one self-existent thing. Or so the argument goes.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point being that if we can differentiate between them, such as we can with sandstone and limestone, then they must be made up of more fundamental parts. Therefore they're not self-existent, their existence is dependent upon the existence of those parts. We could get rid of these things by breaking them down into their constituent parts without eliminating existence itself. So they're not self-existent, they're composed of things.
.

Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestone

 

[Moral Orel]

My point is that the term, 'self-existing', or 'self-existent' implies, or at least allows for, present tense as well as past tense. @Moral Orel said it only implies past tense, i.e. they never came into being

No, I didn't. I said that "uncaused" only implies no beginning. I have nothing to do with your woo terms like "self-existent".

 

[partinobodycular]

Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestone

But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I didn't. I said that "uncaused" only implies no beginning. I have nothing to do with your woo terms like "self-existent".

My bad. I see I have fallen into the same error I assign to others, to conclude something that I think logically followed what you did say, and conclude that you said what I thought logically follows. I am sorry.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Everything is made up of Atoms. If Atoms have always existed, that would mean everything that is made up of Atoms could have existed as well to include sandstone and limestone

But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.

Agreed, nor have atoms themselves as such, nor even the particles that comprise them, I'll warrant.

But equally astounding is the notion that in his use of the word, "everything", real things are limited, by Ken, to material, ignoring real principles, real 'laws' as we call them, by which it seems all material things are governed. I don't think he really meant there is no logic, no math, no art, no beauty, and only falsifiable fact (not to mention the metaphysical, which I assume he denies anyway).

 

[Ken-1122]

But atoms haven't always existed. There was a time in the very early universe when it was too hot for even atoms to exist. So anything made of atoms hasn't always existed.

The singularity consisted of energy and particles. The particles eventually grouped together to form atoms.
What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

 

[Mark Quayle]

The singularity consisted of energy and particles. The particles eventually grouped together to form atoms.
What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

It is almost a figure of speech to say the singularity consisted of particles. We hardly even know what particles are even now —nevermind to say what they were 'then'.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is almost a figure of speech to say the singularity consisted of particles.

Well; particles, energy, and light.

We hardly even know what particles are even now —nevermind to say what they were 'then'.

Is it necessary to know what those particles were, in order to say atoms originated from them?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well; particles, energy, and light.

I will admit to a large amount of ignorance as to what comprised the 'singularity', but the truth is, nobody knows. It seems to me a bit premature to characterize any of it as what we refer to when we say 'particles', 'energy' or 'light'.

Is it necessary to know what those particles were, in order to say atoms originated from them?

No, of course not. It is not even mistaken to say that atoms originated from whatever those particles are/were comprised of, and if we ever find an irreducible component of particles, it remains a component of particles and therefore also a component of atoms, from which they originated.

 

[Ken-1122]

I will admit to a large amount of ignorance as to what comprised the 'singularity', but the truth is, nobody knows. It seems to me a bit premature to characterize any of it as what we refer to when we say 'particles', 'energy' or 'light'.



No, of course not. It is not even mistaken to say that atoms originated from whatever those particles are/were comprised of, and if we ever find an irreducible component of particles, it remains a component of particles and therefore also a component of atoms, from which they originated.

Okay. So getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is possible for the particles and energy to have had an eternal existence, eventually becoming atoms and energy, then material and energy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay. So getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is possible for the particles and energy to have had an eternal existence, eventually becoming atoms and energy, then material and energy.

If so, can you say that rules out first cause?

After all, we don't know what that irreducible component is, yet.

 

[Ken-1122]

If so, can you say that rules out first cause?

After all, we don't know what that irreducible component is, yet.

No! First cause is the particles, light, and energy that made up the singularity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No! First cause is the particles, light, and energy that made up the singularity.

Yet something made thing expand. It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence? They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws. At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.

Do you think that what we have reduced matter and energy and light to, at this point, is irreducible?

 

[Eloy Craft]

A multitude of beings, like God, that can say " I am that I am"
That can claim to have always been.
Ours is a trinity of person's.
A Creator One in being and person wouldn't be able to become a creature in the way a Creator like ours who is One in being and three persons.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet something made thing expand.

How do you know something made it expand? How do you know it didn’t do it on it’s own?

It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence?

If it was always in existence, nothing.

They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws.

We don’t know that they are.

At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.

I never claimed any laws governing them.

Do you think that what we have reduced matter and energy and light to, at this point, is irreducible?

I think nobody knows and we are just making up guesses.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Yet something made thing expand.

How do you know something made it expand? How do you know it didn’t do it on it’s own?

See below

Mark Quayle said: ↑
It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence?

If it was always in existence, nothing.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws.

We don’t know that they are.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.

I never claimed any laws governing them.

In this little exchange, I see a huge difference between the consideration of 'first cause with intent', and 'self-existence of mechanical fact'. Wish I could do better than to argue "no evidence" for the notion of mere mechanical fact, haha. Occam's razor and all that. Right now the obvious just isn't forming an argument in my head, other than what I've already said. Plus, the below just rumbles around in my head, as I'm not sure what you think there.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Do you think that what we have reduced matter and energy and light to, at this point, is irreducible?

I think nobody knows and we are just making up guesses.

Since, according to Einstein and others, time and space began then, or there (which there was none of 'until' then, or there, but how else do we say it?), do you think cause-and-effect did not apply 'before' that? How about reality?

 

[Ken-1122]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Yet something made thing expand.


See below

Mark Quayle said: ↑
It was not, then it did. What brought them into existence?

I think it was a mistake for you to claim something brought it into existence

Mark Quayle said: ↑
They cannot be first cause, as they are subject to external laws.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
At best, I would say, the laws governing them and causing them to do what they did, could be first cause.

I think it is a mistake for you to claim the existence of external laws that govern

Since, according to Einstein and others, time and space began then, or there (which there was none of 'until' then, or there, but how else do we say it?), do you think cause-and-effect did not apply 'before' that? How about reality?

If anything exist (even God); time exists. When Einstein and others speak of before time existed, this has to be before God existed. If you believe God has always existed, you are disagreeing with Einstein and others.