Exists does not equal creates

[Joyousguard]

ateista;3106165]According to Stephen Hawking new matter comes into existence near a black hole, so this seems to support the concept of uncaused existence.

Law of conservation of matter - matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Who knows maybe this black hole is the work of God.

It was an example of incorrect induction.

The example did not really fit was my point and was used to illustarte a point that did not really fit as well.

This is precisely what we don’t know.

The point of the first cause theory is not to explain who cause the first cause (if you follow that even though it really does not make sense per se) but that there is a first cause.

 

[Joyousguard]

Looks like I was not clear enough - again. No, I do not claim that in that particular instance it is an incorrect argument. All I am saying is that the universal composition is a fallacy. Whether in this case it is correct or not, is to be investigated.

I fall the parts are proven to be created by there own very nature then itmust stand that the whole is created as well or more appropriately as I said the whole is made up of contingent beings that must have a cause. Every part is understood to have this characteristic

Ok, let’s put it in this format. I agree that there are many uncaused causes. But what is the point?

The point becomes, that there are many uncaused causes but the temporal chain will not be infinite and would lead to a first cause since things can not cause themselves and be and infinite cycle.

From 1) it does not follow that the cause must be external, nor does it follow that the cause must precede the event. They may be simultaneous.

For example??? As far as aI know a cause must proceed an effect no matter how small the time frame in between. If a cause and an effect are simoultaneously occuring then they would not be cause and effect but both causes or both effects.

The problem with 2) that it presupposes that the causes can be mapped onto the positive integers, and thus they can be ordered as first, secind, etc… But that is just an assumption.

I believe this is what may be refered to as infinite regression as a solution. Please elaborate on this point.

Grammatically, the opposite of “natural” is “unnatural” - which might mean everything that does not appear in nature by themselves. In this sense all the trans-uranium elements are unnatural, and so are our cars, our medications, etc. None of these are “super”-natural.

This is more symantics then anything. It’s unnatural for an elbow to bend backwards but that does not mean it does not happen or does not exist. Unnatural does not mean that things do not exist or are created artifically but rather things that are out of the norm of what is generally agreed to typically happen.

 

[ateista]

fair enough. presumably, though, you must have an inclination one way or the other as to the (in)validity of the compositionality you impute to the first cause argument…

No, not really. One reason is that the idea that there was only one “first cause” is not convincing. I can imagine more than one, maybe even inifinitely many simultaneous uncaused events. And then which was the “first”?

i’m not sure what you’re getting at here: the number of causes in a causal chain can be neither countably nor uncountably infinite.

Maybe. But from the fact that maybe there are only finite number of events in one particular causal chain it still does not follow that there is a “first” one.

i’m also not sure what you’re getting at here. i mean to exclude from the definition of “universe”, any and all objects/entities that are non-corporeal.

Out thoughts are non-corporeal. Are they not part of the Universe?

in the alternative, i have no problem stipulating that the universe is everything that exists at a given possible world (planes, trains, the number 7, angels, and god); but then i would also stipulate that the “universe” doesn’t have a cause.

**Yes, sir!! **I agree.

Though why do you use the word “god” in singular, I don’t know. Maybe there are innumerable gods.

which would, of course, do nothing to change the fact that the contingent (and all but one of the necessary) constituents of the universe would still require one…

Uh-oh. I don’t accept the dichotomy of necessary vs. contingent existence. But even if I did, there might be many “necessary” entities. For example all the atoms could fulfill this role. And why “all but one”?

 

[tdgesq]

No, I do not. The exisence of free will cannot be proven. It is just a very likely assumption.

Not based upon scientific analysis of material being. We know that our genetic makeup influences behavior, hormone levels and the like. We also know from the social sciences that there is a strong correlation between certain social environmental factors and subsequent human behavior. If our decision-making processes and actions are attributable to an uncaused event, then you should be able to explain what it is. What is the scientific explanation for free will that makes it likely at all, much less “very likely”?

There are 2 possibilities:

1. There is free will and then there are uncaused events.
2. There is no free will and then our whole justice system, the concept of sin, etc… are all based on an incorrect assumption and thus they are meaningless.

So your answer is a reductio ad absurdum?

How does this even begin to answer the question of how you attribute our actions to acausality? If I were a nominalist and a materialist, I might just swallow the reductio. That’s right, there is no such thing as justice, sin, etc.

What in the world of material being could possibly account for our actions being uncaused such that we have free will?

Neither can be proven. Pick your choice.

Then you are using an unproven assumption that causality is not necessary for material existence. Why should anyone believe that?

 

[Joyousguard]

=ateista;3109546]No, not really. One reason is that the idea that there was only one “first cause” is not convincing. I can imagine more than one, maybe even inifinitely many simultaneous uncaused events. And then which was the “first”?

Not likley having many uncaused causes. as we regress further and further in time the sepration between all thing sbecome scloser and closer till there is only one. Kinda of like a family tree. Go back far enough and the result will always be the same.

Maybe. But from the fact that maybe there are only finite number of events in one particular causal chain it still does not follow that there is a “first” one.

By the very fact that no chain can go on infinitely it does. Even a chain made up of chaines will still have a first chain and that first chain will have a first cause.

Out thoughts are non-corporeal. Are they not part of the Universe?

did God create our thoughts? Technicaly you could say that they might be indirectly caused. This is a seperate issue and something that would need to be looked at unto itself.

**Yes, sir!! **I agree.

Though why do you use the word “god” in singular, I don’t know. Maybe there are innumerable gods.

In numerable gods would lead to a reality of chaos. (A different off shoot and topic by itself. I realize your simply playing devils advoacte and throwing out possibilities, but the topic should be taken as a given that there is only one God for now because the
time to discuss it is waytoo much. )

FONT=“Verdana”]Uh-oh. I don’t accept the dichotomy of necessary vs. contingent existence. But even if I did, there might be many “necessary” entities. For example all the atoms could fulfill this role. And why “all but one”?

please elaborate or rephrase:thumbsup:

 

[TMC]

The reason it is incorrect is that it is based on a fallcy: the fallacy of composition.

It goes something like this: everything we observed has a “cause”, therefore its existence can only be explained by something “outside it”. Therefore the universe also cannot be explained by itself, its existence also needs an outside cause, and we call that cause: “god”.

There are variants of this. Sometimes it is stipulated that everything that has a beginning, must have a cause. Since he universe has a beginning, it also needs an outside cause.

It does not matter, which variant is used, they are all fallacious. The error is the assumption that if all the entities e1, e2, e3,… all have the property “p”, then the collection of these entities also has the property “p”.

And this is not always true. In some instances it is true, in others it is false. One counter-example is sufficient to disprove the **universal validity **of this concept: “all humans have a mother, therefore humanity also has a mother”. Clearly false.

This is not compositional theory at all. The point is not “if everything in the universe has a cause the universe must also have a cause” which is your compositional “mother of humanity” example.

The point is that: a) all things with a beginning have a cause,b) the universe has a beginning, therefore c) the universe has a cause. So there are three ways to defeat this: 1) all things with beginnings don’t have causes. Possible but I would like to see examples. 2) The universe is not a “thing” within the meaning of “thing” as used here. Also possible, but it would be good to hear why. 3) The universe does not have a beginning. Hard to know, but current science says it does, I think.

 

[ateista]

Not based upon scientific analysis of material being. We know that our genetic makeup influences behavior, hormone levels and the like. We also know from the social sciences that there is a strong correlation between certain social environmental factors and subsequent human behavior. If our decision-making processes and actions are attributable to an uncaused event, then you should be able to explain what it is. What is the scientific explanation for free will that makes it likely at all, much less “very likely”?

I agree that our genetic makeup and social upbringing very heavily influences our behavior. But from the assumption that is does not determine it, it does not follow that I or anyone else should be able to give you the exact explanation of the nuts and bolts of how it happens.

To prove he existence of free will, we should make a “snapshot” of the universe, store it somewhere “outside” (a nonsensical idea), “rewind” the universe, observe if everything happens exactly the same or not. If there is a discrepancy, we could prove that free will exists. But not what is it, or how does it work.

In mathematics there are two kinds of proofs: “existential” and “constructive”. The constructive ones are much better, if possible, but sometimes we must accept the lesser goods. In this case even the existential proof is impossible.

We assume the existence of free will, because we “feel like” that we are not fully determined by external causes.

So your answer is a reductio ad absurdum?

I don’t know why would you be confused. It is a simple and straightforward reasoning.

 

[ateista]

Not likley having many uncaused causes. as we regress further and further in time the sepration between all thing sbecome scloser and closer till there is only one. Kinda of like a family tree. Go back far enough and the result will always be the same.

Why not a forest of trees?

By the very fact that no chain can go on infinitely it does. Even a chain made up of chaines will still have a first chain and that first chain will have a first cause.

No, that does not follow. Since the chains are independent, there is no need to assume a “first” one. Events on a specific causative chain are not independent, so it is sensible to speak of the “first” one.

did God create our thoughts? Technicaly you could say that they might be indirectly caused. This is a seperate issue and something that would need to be looked at unto itself.

If they are caused, either directly or indirectly, then we are not free agents and cannot be held accountable for our actions.

In numerable gods would lead to a reality of chaos. (A different off shoot and topic by itself. I realize your simply playing devils advoacte and throwing out possibilities, but the topic should be taken as a given that there is only one God for now because the time to discuss it is waytoo much. )

Not if they cooperate.

please elaborate or rephrase:thumbsup:

The concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is an artificial distinction. There is “existence”, period.

 

[ateista]

This is not compositional theory at all. The point is not “if everything in the universe has a cause the universe must also have a cause” which is your compositional “mother of humanity” example.

The point is that: a) all things with a beginning have a cause,b) the universe has a beginning, therefore c) the universe has a cause. So there are three ways to defeat this: 1) all things with beginnings don’t have causes. Possible but I would like to see examples. 2) The universe is not a “thing” within the meaning of “thing” as used here. Also possible, but it would be good to hear why. 3) The universe does not have a beginning. Hard to know, but current science says it does, I think.

Well, you used another variant of the same argument. There are quite a few. (John Doran used one which is different from yours).

1. All of our actions, if we have free will. Our actions have a beginning, but if we have free will, then they are not “caused” by anything in any meaning of the word.
2. The universe is a collection of all the “things”. Collections and sets may (or may not) have emergent properties. They may or may not have properties that all of its elements have.
3. The universe in its current form is supposed to have emerged from a singularity. From it does not follow that the universe had a “beginning”.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… it is based on a fallcy: the fallacy of composition.

Actually, the conclusion it is based upon both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Deduction (Lat. de ducere*)* means “to lead, draw out, derive from; especially, the function of deriving truth from truth.” It is an inference by which from *general *truths already known we advance to a knowledge of other *particular *truths necessarily implied in the former.

The typical expression of a deductive inference is a syllogism. Granted the truth of the prior judgments, the consequent must follow; and the firmness of our assent to the latter is conditioned by that of our assent to the former. An example of deduction is as follows…

• Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
• The universe has a beginning.
• Therefore the universe has a cause.
  Induction is the complement of deduction. In other words, it is inference by which from particular truths already known we advance to a knowledge of general or *universal *truths *supported by *the former. In this form of reasoning, the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it.

Example:

• All observed crows are black
• Therefore all crows are black
  Given a sufficient sample size, one can infer facts about the total population. It can be concluded with statistical certainty that all crows are black. The conclusion is reasonably supported by the premise, but not absolutely proven in the strict sense. Unless we are certain that we have seen every crow (which is impossible), there may be one of a different color (albeit, statistically improbable). Consequently, with inductive reasoning, the premises–at best–may predict a high probability or certainty of the conclusion, but do not absolutely ensure that the conclusion is true.

Consequently, the argument is presented as:

• All observed beginnings have a cause
• Therefore, all beginnings have a cause
  The above is an argument based upon inductive reasoning. Unless we have observed everything that had a beginning (which is impossible), we can at best, only **predict with high probability that everything which has a beginning has a cause. It is *****a reasonably certain conclusion, based upon the preponderance of evidence.

---

Many number of scientific conclusion are based upon inductive reasoning. To omit inductive reasoning from theology is absurd, given that it is a valid form of reasoning for all other fields of study.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree that our genetic makeup and social upbringing very heavily influences our behavior. But from the assumption that is does not determine it, it does not follow that I or anyone else should be able to give you the exact explanation of the nuts and bolts of how it happens.

I never said it did determine our actions. I said that from an observable scientific standpoint our actions are caused. And I’m not asking you for an exact explanation of the alleged uncaused part of our actions, I’m asking for any explanation of how this occurs in material being.

To prove he existence of free will, we should make a “snapshot” of the universe, store it somewhere “outside” (a nonsensical idea), “rewind” the universe, observe if everything happens exactly the same or not. If there is a discrepancy, we could prove that free will exists. But not what is it, or how does it work.

Yes, I understand your argument that free will cannot be proven. That’s why I keep asking how you believe it supports non-causal relationships. I mean, you are the one who boldly asserted that Aquinas’ argument is wrong because it is quite likely that there is uncaused existence.

In mathematics there are two kinds of proofs: “existential” and “constructive”. The constructive ones are much better, if possible, but sometimes we must accept the lesser goods. In this case even the existential proof is impossible.

Yes, I agree that there is no mathematical proof to support your conclusion either.

We assume the existence of free will, because we “feel like” that we are not fully determined by external causes.

Says who? I guess you’ve never met somebody who feels like he has no control over his life. I have. It looks like you’ve done your own informal study of how people feel about free will; too bad it’s based on induction, which you earlier threw out as a valid means of acquiring knowledge. So really your objection is based on your feeling of having control of your actions apart from any cause. And from that we can conclude that it is likely there is uncaused existence. I’ll let the people at home decide whether that is a good argument.

 

[ateista]

I never said it did determine our actions. I said that from an observable scientific standpoint our actions are caused. And I’m not asking you for an exact explanation of the alleged uncaused part of our actions, I’m asking for any explanation of how this occurs in material being.

Ah, I see now. That is quite a problem, but I will give you my reasoning. I think that should happen in a different thread, one which I have been contemplating for a while. Its title will be something like: “Brain/mind - hardware/software.” It will take some time to put it together. I hope it will lead to some interesting discussions.

Says who? I guess you’ve never met somebody who feels like he has no control over his life. I have.

I agree that under some **very stressful **circumstances one may feel that way. But that is hardly the norm. And if you would scratch the surface, I bet, that even under such duress, the person would still feel that he has some very limited control over his life. Not even in the most controlled circumstances (say a maximum security prison) can someone be forced every minute of his life to conform to someone else’s demands.

 

[john_doran]

No, not really. One reason is that the idea that there was only one “first cause” is not convincing. I can imagine more than one, maybe even inifinitely many simultaneous uncaused events. And then which was the “first”?

well, if they all simultaneously caused the universe, then they’re all first. but that makes no sense to suggest, especially by the lights of the atheist’s favorite tool, ockham’s razor. why posit an infinite number of simultaneous causes, when only one will suffice?

ateista:

Maybe. But from the fact that maybe there are only finite number of events in one particular causal chain it still does not follow that there is a “first” one.

you mean that it doesn’t follow that there is only one first one; it certainly follows that there is (at least) one first cause upon which all the rest depend.

ateista:

Out thoughts are non-corporeal. Are they not part of the Universe?

are you saying that you believe our thoughts are incorporeal?

**Yes, sir!! **I agree.

Though why do you use the word “god” in singular, I don’t know. Maybe there are innumerable gods.

because i believe that there is only one god, where by “god” i mean “maximally perfect being”. there are untold numbers of “gods” understood as something like “non-corporeal intelligences”.

ateista:

Uh-oh. I don’t accept the dichotomy of necessary vs. contingent existence. But even if I did, there might be many “necessary” entities. For example all the atoms could fulfill this role. And why “all but one”?

there are an infinite number of necessary beings: the real numbers, for example.

atoms cannot be necessary because there are possible worlds which do not contain any.

 

[ateista]

well, if they all simultaneously caused the universe, then they’re all first. but that makes no sense to suggest, especially by the lights of the atheist’s favorite tool, ockham’s razor. why posit an infinite number of simultaneous causes, when only one will suffice?

But now you argue that they are all “first” in the temporal sense, don’t you? And in a previous post you discarded the temporal precedence, and said that only “causal” or “logical” precedence is relevant.

And between independent causal chains the “precedence” cannot be defined in a causal or logical sense.

Moreover, I am not arguing for the validity of this scenario, I wanted to point out that the existence of causal chains does not lead to one and only one first cause.

After all, the whole first cause arguement is supposed to prove the existence of some “god” (though maybe not the Christian God). And it is supposed to do that without appealing to faith.

However in the light of above it cannot do that.

you mean that it doesn’t follow that there is only one first one; it certainly follows that there is (at least) one first cause upon which all the rest depend.

No, it follows that there are many causal chains. Which is true, but quite trivial. New causal chains are created all the time.

are you saying that you believe our thoughts are incorporeal?

Yes, of course!

because i believe that there is only one god, where by “god” i mean “maximally perfect being”.

The concept of “maximally perfect being” is quite undefined. Yet, even if one accepts it, it simply does not follow that there can only be one - unless you stipulate that the definition of “maximally perfect” includes the criterion of “being alone”.

there are untold numbers of “gods” understood as something like “non-corporeal intelligences”.

That is nice. So am I a god?

there are an infinite number of necessary beings: the real numbers, for example.

atoms cannot be necessary because there are possible worlds which do not contain any.

Ahem… this leads back again to our prior conversation to about abstract objects. I posted a few observations and questions for you there. If you have time, would you revisit it?

 

[john_doran]

But now you argue that they are all “first” in the temporal sense, don’t you?

no - only logically and causally first.

ateista:

And between independent causal chains the “precedence” cannot be defined in a causal or logical sense.

i’m not talking about a multitude of causal chains, but only one: aquinas’ first cause argument deduces the need for an uncaused first cause for *each *causal chain.

ateista:

Moreover, I am not arguing for the validity of this scenario, I wanted to point out that the existence of causal chains does not lead to one and only one first cause.

sure. but there is at least one uncaused cause.

ateista:

After all, the whole first cause arguement is supposed to prove the existence of some “god” (though maybe not the Christian God). And it is supposed to do that without appealing to faith.

However in the light of above it cannot do that.

the first cause argument itself only establishes the existence of at least one uncaused cause; the subsequent corollary arguments then establish that there is only one, and that it is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.

ateista:

Yes, of course!

???

how does a purely physical brain generate non-physical thoughts?

ateista:

The concept of “maximally perfect being” is quite undefined. Yet, even if one accepts it, it simply does not follow that there can only be one - unless you stipulate that the definition of “maximally perfect” includes the criterion of “being alone”.

it’s almost axiomatic that maximal perfection can only be instantiated by one being…

but this isn’t a thread about maximal perfection.

ateista:

That is nice. So am I a god?

depends who you ask, i guess…

but certainly not by my definition, since you are not a non-corporeal intelligence: you are an embodied person whose intellect has a non-corporeal foundation.

i was talking about angels.

ateista:

Ahem… this leads back again to our prior conversation to about abstract objects. I posted a few observations and questions for you there. If you have time, would you revisit it?

i may give it a look today - i just got a little tired of the issue…

 

[ateista]

no - only logically and causally first.

i’m not talking about a multitude of causal chains, but only one: aquinas’ first cause argument deduces the need for an uncaused first cause for each causal chain.

I have no problem with that. Though I cannot understand what do you mean to have a logical or causal “first” among several independent causal chains. A temporal “first” could have a meaning, the others do not.

sure. but there is at least one uncaused cause.

Sounds good to me. Again the existence of at least one uncaused cause does not establish anything special.

the first cause argument itself only establishes the existence of at least one uncaused cause; the subsequent corollary arguments then establish that there is only one, and that it is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.

Ok. But since the first cause argument can only establish the existence of at least one such cause, I don’t see how it can be establish the rest - without appealing to faith, sacred books, revelations, etc… Maybe you could explain, if not in this thread, then in another one.

???

how does a purely physical brain generate non-physical thoughts?

I am about to open a new thread about this topic.

it’s almost axiomatic that maximal perfection can only be instantiated by one being…

It sure is not axiomatic to me. But you are right, this thread is not about that topic.

i may give it a look today - i just got a little tired of the issue…

I am sorry, if I was pesky… please don’t bother, if you are not interested. This is supposed to be a pleasant conversation about mutually interesting problems, not a chore or obligation. You can always post a short “I am tired of this topic”… and I will not get back to it. And that is a promise.

 

[john_doran]

I have no problem with that. Though I cannot understand what do you mean to have a logical or causal “first” among several independent causal chains. A temporal “first” could have a meaning, the others do not.

the idea is that each causal chain must have a logically and causally first, uncaused cause.

whether or not those uncaused causes are numerically identical is a further question, as you note.

ateista:

Sounds good to me. Again the existence of at least one uncaused cause does not establish anything special.

depends on what you mean by “special”, i guess…it’s a short logical step from “uncaused”, for example, to “non-corporeal”…which may or may not qualify it as “special” depending on whether you are or are not imclined to believe that the natural world contains everything that exists.

ateista:

Ok. But since the first cause argument can only establish the existence of at least one such cause, I don’t see how it can be establish the rest - without appealing to faith, sacred books, revelations, etc… Maybe you could explain, if not in this thread, then in another one.

well, as an example, the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument for a first cause establishes that there cannot have been an actually infinite number of temporal moments preceding this one. but it follows from that, that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the coming-to-be of the universe could not have existed for all eternity, or else the universe would have existed for all eternity, which, ex hypothesi, it hasn’t. but then the first cause (whatever it might be) must have done something like choose to create the universe, and if that’s true, then the first cause is in some important way, a personal being - i.e. a being that is a person (since being able to choose freely is arguably a sufficient condition for personhood). and, if it can choose, then it must also be rational…

as for being singular, the traditional argument is that any first cause must be purely actual, since if it is, at some point, not something that it nonetheless could be, that would mean that there is some other logically and causally prior cause, which there isn’t. (this is not dissimilar to the argument from perfection: all maximally perfect beings must be numerically identical; if they’re not, then there’s perfections that they lack - namely the perfections instantiated by the other beings).

ateista:

I am sorry, if I was pesky… please don’t bother, if you are not interested. This is supposed to be a pleasant conversation about mutually interesting problems, not a chore or obligation. You can always post a short “I am tired of this topic”… and I will not get back to it. And that is a promise.

no, no - you weren’t pesky at all. it’s just a matter of a waning interest on my part…

i’ll go and give it a look at some point, i’m sure.

 

[ateista]

the idea is that each causal chain must have a logically and causally first, uncaused cause.

whether or not those uncaused causes are numerically identical is a further question, as you note.

I agree. Therefore the existence of uncasued causes does not lead to a logically or causally “first” one, and as such it cannot establish the necessity of a God. That is all I wanted to point out.

well, as an example, the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument for a first cause establishes that there cannot have been an actually infinite number of temporal moments preceding this one. but it follows from that, that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the coming-to-be of the universe could not have existed for all eternity, or else the universe would have existed for all eternity, which, ex hypothesi, it hasn’t. but then the first cause (whatever it might be) must have done something like choose to create the universe, and if that’s true, then the first cause is in some important way, a personal being - i.e. a being that is a person (since being able to choose freely is arguably a sufficient condition for personhood). and, if it can choose, then it must also be rational…

I am sorry, but none of those follows in a logically necessary manner - or at least I don’t see it. The hypothetical first cause could have been an inanimate entity. Or it could have created the “universe” by accident - as a by-product of some other activity. Nor does it follow that this fist cause still exists today.

as for being singular, the traditional argument is that any first cause must be purely actual, since if it is, at some point, not something that it nonetheless could be, that would mean that there is some other logically and causally prior cause, which there isn’t. (this is not dissimilar to the argument from perfection: all maximally perfect beings must be numerically identical; if they’re not, then there’s perfections that they lack - namely the perfections instantiated by the other beings).

If by this you mean something like that there is only one “abstract one”, I cannot argue with it. It would make no sense to postulate two identical abstract “ones”, for example. But that makes God’s activities questionable, since an abstract concept cannot “act” in any meaningful manner. If God is more than just a concept (as believers contend), then I see no logical reason why should be only one “being” with the assumed attributes,

It would be interesting to explore the concept of “perfection”, since I find it a very anthropomorphic idea.

no, no - you weren’t pesky at all. it’s just a matter of a waning interest on my part…

i’ll go and give it a look at some point, i’m sure.

Please do it at your leisure, if and when you find it interesting. I will post a few more thoughts, which occurred to me lately, as a matter of fact, this post of yours inspired them. Do not take it as a “prodding”, please…

By the way, if we do not talk until then, have a very merry Christmas.

 

[john_doran]

I agree. Therefore the existence of uncasued causes does not lead to a logically or causally “first” one, and as such it cannot establish the necessity of a God. That is all I wanted to point out.

the argument from efficient causation might not (at least not by itself), but the kalam cosmological argument certainly leads logically to the existence of a creator of the universe.

ateista:

I am sorry, but none of those follows in a logically necessary manner - or at least I don’t see it. The hypothetical first cause could have been an inanimate entity. Or it could have created the “universe” by accident - as a by-product of some other activity.

it couldn’t be inanimate: if it were then it would itself be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe, which would mean that the universe would have always existed. and the cosmological argument demonstrates that it hasn’t.

the first cause certainly could have created the universe as a by-product of something else it did (perhaps a bet with another deity, or maybe we’re the goo on the bottom of the test-tube in some failed divine chemistry experiment, or something). the point is that the first cause would have had to have chosen to do that other thing, or else the universe, again, would have followed necessarily and eternally from the first cause’s causing the other thing…

of course, the first cause need not interact with his creation in any way…whether or not it does is a question unanswerable by philosophy.

ateista:

Nor does it follow that this fist cause still exists today.

sure it does: the first cause can have no potential in it - that is, there is nothing that the first cause isn’t but that it could be, since that would require some other cause that possessed the property the first cause lacked, and which could cause the first cause to have. but there can’t be any other such cause, so there can be nothing that could cause the first cause not to exist, not even itself.

ateista:

If by this you mean something like that there is only one “abstract one”, I cannot argue with it. It would make no sense to postulate two identical abstract “ones”, for example. But that makes God’s activities questionable, since an abstract concept cannot “act” in any meaningful manner. If God is more than just a concept (as believers contend), then I see no logical reason why should be only one “being” with the assumed attributes,

god isn’t an abstract object,though he might be called an abstract being, precisely because he can choose and act.

ateista:

It would be interesting to explore the concept of “perfection”, since I find it a very anthropomorphic idea.

it seems to me that the difficulty with “perfection” is not so much that it’s an anthropomorphic concept, but that there’s a deep and difficult-to-eliminate axiology to it - i.e. that “perfection” is commonly understood as evaluative. and values are also usually understood as being immune to objective ranking (e.g. i like peanut butter more than i like tomatoes, but it doesn’t follow that peanut butter is “better” than tomatoes).

like most of the things worth thinking about, it is a vexed question.

ateista:

By the way, if we do not talk until then, have a very merry Christmas.

you also, my friend…

 

[freesoulhope]

“matter comes into existence near a black hole.”

This statement almost made me lose my mind, thats why i had to make a comment.

If matter “comes into existence near a black hole”, how does this support the concept of “uncaused existence”?

If this is atheism at its finest then Christians need not worry.

You seem to completly lack any understanding that the universe is a long but finite chain of cause and effect. There is nothing about any part of the universe that points to the concept that the universe is ultimatley the cuase of itself. In fact we see the opossite. Logic stands opossed to the the idea that an actual thing could just pop into existence without a cuase; There is abosultely no evidence. One simply comes to that conclusion because of ones athiesm. When one applys the naturalist concept to reality, it simply doesn’t resemble the real world in any way shape or form. When compared to the God hypothesis, Naturalism seems to be asking that one believes in magic over miracles. At least God is something. Cosmology points to God.