There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[AskTheFamily]

Well, at least you've thought about it.

Be sure to be there with my next thread with the proof of God and his Oneness through the Divine beautiful Names.

 

[durangodawood]

So uncaused cause not subject to time space and matter, causes space time and matter?

Ok So we agree, I just disagree that it's possible a mindless eternal beginingless and endless thing can start time and cause change, and cause space, etc...so I conclude a Concious Creator did it.

However, we have come to the agreement of the conclusion. We are not only discussing the nature of the Uncaused Cause and to me it's evident it's not some sort of super brainless reality that starts time and causes time and space, and motion and energy but rather a conscious Creator that began it and maintains it.

Yes.
.
I dont think there's a rational argument that the universe needs a cause. It comes down to our own personal intuition.
.
I have no problem when someone tells me that it just seems/feels that a creator is necessary.
.
BUT... I am wary of our "feelings" on the matter, as our intuition may be shaped by our position embedded within the spatial/temporal/material world. We could intuit wrong about levels of reality to which we have no access.
.
(Good discussion, by the way.)
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Yes.
.
I dont think there's a rational argument that the universe needs a cause. It comes down to our own personal intuition.
.
I have no problem when someone tells me that it just seems/feels that a creator is necessary.
.
BUT... I am wary of our "feelings" on the matter, as our intuition may be shaped by our position embedded within the spatial/temporal/material world.
.

Ok.

 

[AskTheFamily]

(Good discussion, by the way.)
.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Stayed tuned for the next thread.

 

[Zoot]

I tutored on the Kalam cosmological argument once. Good for getting people's brains going.

 

[durangodawood]

I tutored on the Kalam cosmological argument once. Good for getting people's brains going.

I never knew it had a special name.
.
Does my refutation make sense?
.

 

[Zoot]

I never knew it had a special name.
.
Does my refutation make sense?
.

I haven't really been following the thread. Can you summarise it?

 

[durangodawood]

I haven't really been following the thread. Can you summarise it?

Sure:
1. I am proposing ONE POSSIBLE solution that explains how the universe would not require a cause. I'm not stating known fact, just possibility.
.
2. Cause-effect requires TIME.
.
4. SPACE and TIME are evident within the universe. But they may have NO application to the universe itself. We have no basis for definitive statements about what a universe requires.
.
5. The universe itself might "reside in eternity". And other universes as well, if they exist.
.
6. I'm suggesting that an eternal universe may "contain" space, time, and matter. But the universe itself may have its own sort of existence, not necessarily subject to the rules of space. time and matter. (Just like all the other possible universes.)
.
7. So, if the universe does not exist in time, then "cause/effect" may well have no applicability to its existence.
.
8. And so there's no rational necessity for the universe to have a first cause
.
.
(AND a related aside: Ask any believer in God... they all believe in an eternal/uncaused existence or realm or God. So the idea of an eternal/uncaused universe should NOT be too far out for them.)

 

[Zoot]

Works fine, Durang, so long as you're aware that you're just defining the universe the same way theists define God: "That which breaks the rules."

 

[durangodawood]

Works fine, Durang, so long as you're aware that you're just defining the universe the same way theists define God: "That which breaks the rules."

But its entirely reasonable to suggest we might have no access now to the rules of how universes work.
.
And thats all I need to do to refute that everything must have a first cause.
.
Theists typically go WAY further with God: he IS this, he DID that.
.

 

[razeontherock]

If God was able to come from nothing

Mighty big IF there. FAIL

 

[razeontherock]

But, logically, if there were ever a time in which the universe would contain that which wasn't an effect, it would be the first instant of time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Does that stand up to scrutiny? This statement assumes that the (or any) original source disappeared as soon as it had any effect. Not only is this not proven to be true, does it even make sense? Is there any reason to think this is the case?

 

[razeontherock]

Good try, but not true. If the start is moving, it is always in existence. For all of time, it exists. It doesn't just appear out of nothing. It is precisely First Existence.

You don't see contradiction in this? You state time = change. That can't always be in existence. Plus, we've already covered time and pre-time as being distinct. So the moving can start with time, (by definition) but does not speak at all to causing it originally.

 

[razeontherock]

Islam like Christianity are all bluff and smoke, they have no substance whatsoever.

Now Grace, this is not an ok post. Easy to fix, via you found no substance, or something to that effect; but even so, a coal from a fire removed off by itself goes out.

 

[razeontherock]

And if time is not relevant, then neither is cause. Who knows?

Time is relevant. This is provable. This does not dismiss cause, and all davein vain's post about infinity proves is it makes no sense to us so our math can't handle it.

 

[razeontherock]

If the Universe was created by a singularity called the Big Bang, then we were created by chance rendering us meaningless. But, if we were made by a divine omnipotent being, then all of a sudden we are meaningful.

False dichotomy.

Are you positive with complete metaphysical certitude that humans could not have lied about God.

Bring out the comfy chair! Humans have lied about G-d. This has no bearing.

 

[durangodawood]

Time is relevant. This is provable. This does not dismiss cause, and all davein vain's post about infinity proves is it makes no sense to us so our math can't handle it.

Allow me to refer you to post #88 (double infinity!) for a complete summary of my argument here.
.

 

[razeontherock]

If time doesn't apply to God, God can't act, because to act is to change -to change from not having acted to having acted.

FALSE. During all the action, He still exists both before time and after it.


Whoa big.

 

[razeontherock]

(AND a related aside: Ask any believer in God... they all believe in an eternal/uncaused existence or realm or God. So the idea of an eternal/uncaused universe should NOT be too far out for them.)

Yes this works, Zoot's comment about it is correct, it also agrees w/ a statement made by Eudaimonist some time back that I informed him He just defined G-d.

Now, I ask you to compare your concept here to say, the Monty Python-esque old guy with a long robe that just wants to make sure you never have any fun.
















No comparison, right? This is the sad distortion the church has created, much like a cartoonist having a rabbit say "what's up Doc?" Except only one of these is funny.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes this works, Zoot's comment about it is correct, it also agrees w/ a statement made by Eudaimonist some time back that I informed him He just defined G-d.

Now, I ask you to compare your concept here to say, the Monty Python-esque old guy with a long robe that just wants to make sure you never have any fun.

No comparison, right? This is the sad distortion the church has created, much like a cartoonist having a rabbit say "what's up Doc?" Except only one of these is funny.

My concept of God? I dont believe I proposed one. I just looked at a single specific aspect: uncaused.
.