uncaused causes

[quatona]

In defense of the existence of a (generic) god we often hear the argument that an "uncaused cause/unmoved mover" is necessary as an explanation for the existence of the physical world.
Leaving aside for a moment all the weaknesses of this argument:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

 

[Davian]

I don't think so. Not the personal deity type of deity.

(The Unmoved Mower)

 

[Elioenai26]

In defense of the existence of a (generic) god we often hear the argument that an "uncaused cause/unmoved mover" is necessary as an explanation for the existence of the physical world.
Leaving aside for a moment all the weaknesses of this argument:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

Yes, it would.

I am glad you asked this question.

Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists maintain that the theistic God is in fact the best explanation for the cause of the universe according to the data that we have about it's composition, order, and initial beginning. The theistic God is the uncaused cause you made mention of.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, it would.

Why?

Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists maintain that the theistic God is in fact the best explanation for the cause of the universe according to the data that we have about it's composition, order, and initial beginning. The theistic God is the uncaused cause you made mention of.

Justify this.

Assertion isn't sufficient.

 

[variant]

Yes, it would.

I am glad you asked this question.

Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists maintain that the theistic God is in fact the best explanation for the cause of the universe according to the data that we have about it's composition, order, and initial beginning. The theistic God is the uncaused cause you made mention of.

Not really.

God, since it can explain anything, even contradictory things, is never an explanation without talking about specific mechanisms.

If having an uncaused cause is necessary, the mechanism for that cause is still unknown.

Merely asserting "it was God" dosen't actually tell us anything.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not really.

God, since it can explain anything, even contradictory things, is never an explanation without talking about specific mechanisms.

If having an uncaused cause is necessary, the mechanism for that cause is still unknown.

Merely asserting "it was God" dosen't actually tell us anything.

Your whole posts consists of assumptions based on opinion.

How is it that you maintain that God cannot explain anything? Why do you say that?

What is a specific mechanism?

When and how has it been determined that if a "mechanism" for something is unknown, it automatically explains nothing?

I am unable to follow your train of thought.

 

[quatona]

Just for clarification...
My question is:
Once we were to accept that the existence of uncaused causes is possible/necessary - what would keep us from considering/postulating two, three, ten, thousands or countless uncaused causes, and instead decide that this must be a unique phenomenon?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why?


Justify this.

Assertion isn't sufficient.

If evidence can be supplied to show that it is more plausibly true than not, that an Uncaused Cause, or Unmoved Mover as Aquinas designated it, is the cause of the existence of the universe, then this would warrant for theism to be maintained as the properly correlative worldview.

Monotheism specifically, the Judeo-Christian worldview would then be argued for from this position.

With each level, their is increased specificity. Kind of like steps leading up to a room wherein truth dwells. Starting at the bottom, we by a series of eliminations based on available evidence, discard those views which are found to be in contradiction to the evidence as we know it.

Of course one must bear in mind that this is purely philosophical and scientific argumentation.

Most of the deductions and inferences made in these arguments are going to determined by what is more logically and plausibly true than not.

We use inductive and deductive reasoning in these arguments along with philosophical argumentaion supported when necessary, by scientific research.

 

[variant]

Your whole posts consists of assumptions based on opinion.

How is it that you maintain that God cannot explain anything? Why do you say that?

I am saying that an explaination that can explain all possible observations (even contradictory ones) is not an explaination at all, just a set of words.

God can explain any observation and thus can not increase our understanding of the things we do observe. It grants us no power to make predictions about future events.

What is a specific mechanism?

An answer to the question "how?"

When I ask you what caused the universe and you say an uncaused cause, thus God. You must answer HOW this worked and HOW it was done in order for your answer to be an explaination.

Merely asserting a God with the power to cause a universe dosen't explain anything it just answers the question with hollow words.

When and how has it been determined that if a "mechanism" for something is unknown, it automatically explains nothing?

I am unable to follow your train of thought.

To explain something you have to make it more understood and to understand something you need to know some mechanism of how it works.

God is an answer not an explaination. You know nothing more after asserting that God caused the universe than you did before.

 

[Elioenai26]

Just for clarification...
My question is:
Once we were to accept that the existence of uncaused causes is possible/necessary - what would keep us from considering/postulating two, three, ten, thousands or countless uncaused causes, and instead decide that this must be a unique phenomenon?

To have two uncaused causes is a contradiction.

The reason this is not so easily understood is that a cause that has aseity (uncaused by another) as an attribute, also has many other attributes along with it.

We cannot see the uncaused cause as being simply or only an uncaused cause. It, by it's nature is much more than that.


In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being. (courtesy of Peter Kreeft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College)

So you see that there can only logically be one uncaused cause, and not two or ten ot ten thousand and so on and so forth.

 

[variant]

To have two uncaused causes is a contradiction.

The reason this is not so easily understood is that a cause that has aseity (uncaused by another) as an attribute, also has many other attributes along with it.

We cannot see the uncaused cause as being simply or only an uncaused cause. It, by it's nature is much more than that.


In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being. (courtesy of Peter Kreeft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College)

So you see that there can only logically be one uncaused cause, and not two or ten ot ten thousand and so on and so forth.

Multiple uncaused causes can't interact? Why not?

Why is it ok for God to be uncaused but nothing else? We call that special pleading.

Prove this:

"The universe contains only contingent beings"

 

[quatona]

To have two uncaused causes is a contradiction.

The reason this is not so easily understood is that a cause that has aseity (uncaused by another) as an attribute, also has many other attributes along with it.

We cannot see the uncaused cause as being simply or only an uncaused cause. It, by it's nature is much more than that.


In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being. (courtesy of Peter Kreeft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College)

So you see that there can only logically be one uncaused cause, and not two or ten ot ten thousand and so on and so forth.

Sorry, I see nothing in the essay that addresses my question or supports your assertion that multiple uncaused causes "is a contradiction".

 

[Elioenai26]

Multiple uncaused causes can't interact? Why not?

In the absence of evidence for multiple uncaused causes, it is incorrect to suppose them. This is what is stated by Occam’s Razor – that one should posit the minimum number of causes sufficient to explain a particular phenomenon.

In other words, we should not multiply causes unnecessarily. Thus, in the absence of evidence for them, it would not make sense to suppose the existence of multiple Causes if one Cause is a sufficient explanation.

Also, this Uncaused Cause could not be an unintelligent or impersonal force. For if it were possible for some sort of timeless, impersonal force to cause something, it’s effect would also be timeless. In order for a timeless force to create an effect in time, it would have to intend it, and intention implies Mind.

Therefore, it is logically impossible to have two omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, uncaused causes. Two uncaused causes cannot exist because if they did, then one would not be uncaused at all, but caused by the uncaused omnipotent cause. You cannot have two all-powerful beings or two all-knowing beings. The attributes such as all-knowing, and all-powerful among others, by nature make it impossible for more than one being to possess them.

Why is it ok for God to be uncaused but nothing else? We call that special pleading.

The response that this is special pleading is fallacious for two main reasons:

1. The greatest conceivable being has to be uncaused by definition because the greatest conceivable being cannot be caused by another.

2. This is not special pleading for God because that is precisely what atheists always have said about the universe, matter, and energy—the universe is eternal, and uncaused.

If atheists maintain that it is special pleading to say that God is uncaused (which is what He is by definition being the greatest conceivable Being), then they must also maintain that it is special pleading to say that the universe is uncaused!

Prove this:

"The universe contains only contingent beings"

This quote is simple to show to be true.

None of us caused ourselves to be. We are contingent upon something greater than ourselves. The world did not cause itself to be, nor did the solar sytem, nor did our galaxy, nor did the billions of other galaxies, nor did the universe itself.

Ex nihilo nihil fit states that from nothing, nothing comes. But the universe is something, therefore it could not have come from nothing. There exists something beyond the universe. This makes the universe contingent upon this Uncaused Cause (which is beyond space and time) for it's existence.

 

[dlamberth]

In defense of the existence of a (generic) god we often hear the argument that an "uncaused cause/unmoved mover" is necessary as an explanation for the existence of the physical world.
Leaving aside for a moment all the weaknesses of this argument:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

Being a bit biased as it comes closer to the lens through which I look, I'd say that it makes a case for Panentheism.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, it would.

I am glad you asked this question.

Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists maintain that the theistic God is in fact the best explanation for the cause of the universe according to the data that we have about it's composition, order, and initial beginning. The theistic God is the uncaused cause you made mention of.

You didn't answer the question....

Simply stating what Christian apologists believe is meaningless. You have to say why and how your explanation is justified.

And even Christian apologists can't tie it directly to a Monotheistic, Personal God (i.e. the Christian God).... they attempt to tie it to some power beyond us, then simply jump to the conclusion that it's the God they happen to believe in.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your whole posts consists of assumptions based on opinion.

As did yours...

How is it that you maintain that God cannot explain anything? Why do you say that?

He did explain that in his post.

What is a specific mechanism?

It's a process by which something works

When and how has it been determined that if a "mechanism" for something is unknown, it automatically explains nothing?

I am unable to follow your train of thought.

If the mechanism is unknown, then we don't know how it happened. How can we explain anything about something we know nothing about?

 

[Elioenai26]

As did yours...



He did explain that in his post.



It's a process by which something works



If the mechanism is unknown, then we don't know how it happened. How can we explain anything about something we know nothing about?

Maybe you can explain for him, what his post was about, I still do not understand how what he said related to what I said.

 

[Elioenai26]

You didn't answer the question....

Simply stating what Christian apologists believe is meaningless. You have to say why and how your explanation is justified.

And even Christian apologists can't tie it directly to a Monotheistic, Personal God (i.e. the Christian God).... they attempt to tie it to some power beyond us, then simply jump to the conclusion that it's the God they happen to believe in.

You are not paying attention to what has been asked nor what has been given in response.

His question was:

Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?

I have answered this question Mr. Ellis.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If evidence can be supplied to show that it is more plausibly true than not, that an Uncaused Cause, or Unmoved Mover as Aquinas designated it, is the cause of the existence of the universe, then this would warrant for theism to be maintained as the properly correlative worldview.

Sure, if that evidence can be presented, you are correct in your statement.

The problem is, that evidence has not been presented, so the concept is not even remotely plausible.

Monotheism specifically, the Judeo-Christian worldview would then be argued for from this position.

You would require further evidence to tie it to a specific god rather than just a God in general. If your first point isn't plausible, this point is even less so.

With each level, their is increased specificity. Kind of like steps leading up to a room wherein truth dwells. Starting at the bottom, we by a series of eliminations based on available evidence, discard those views which are found to be in contradiction to the evidence as we know it.

This is absolutely correct.

Of course one must bear in mind that this is purely philosophical and scientific argumentation.

Yes and No.... Namely, no to the Philosophical argumentation, and yes to the scientific.

The matter of the existence or non existence of something is a scientific matter, not a philosophical one. You can make a perfectly philosophical, logical justification for belief.... however, without evidence, you still have no actual reason to believe. This is why it's a scientific matter.

Most of the deductions and inferences made in these arguments are going to determined by what is more logically and plausibly true than not.

We use inductive and deductive reasoning in these arguments along with philosophical argumentaion supported when necessary, by scientific research.

That's what apologists do... Make up logical and philosophical arguments with no backing in reality (and usually full of logical flaws). They then pick and choose the science that doesn't directly contradict their views, or mislabel non-scientific things as scientific to try to back their case.

There is not one piece of scientific data that supports the idea of a God or divine creator at all, period

On the other hand, we look for actual evidence, actual reason to believe. If we find some, we will believe. Until then, we dismiss the idea as unsound.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To have two uncaused causes is a contradiction.

No, it's not a contradiction at all. If my clipboard fell off my desk right now for no reason at all... it would be an uncaused cause. That would not contradict any other uncaused cause that might happen in the past, present or future.