Could you please put those proof in syllogisms?Intellect, omniscience, omnipotence are not just assigned. They’re deduced.
No, unstable energy could be uncaused-cause. It is simple fabric of universe before Big Bang. It was uniform. It just suddenly blasted. That is the simplest thing which comes to our minds.“Unstable energy” can’t be an uncaused cause. It is composed, but it cannot pre-exist itself to compose itself. It’s in motion (changing), and potential is reduced to act by another act. If a part of it moves itself, then that part is more fundamental the simply the “unstable energy”, so the “unstable energy” cannot itself be the first cause, but perhaps the part that actualized it is (if it can be determined to be non-composed, eternal, pure act, etc…). It is not pure act. It’s contingent (as in corruptible, that it may not be, for example, by undergoing a substantial change into something else), so at some point it could not be, and if it’s possible to not be, and so couldn’t be the necessary being by which all contingent beings have their existence at this moment. And more. Please review the cosmological arguments. It’s an apophatic analysis.
What if all things we argue is a figment of our minds and does not explain reality as it is. Like string theory, etc.And you keep repeatedly ignoring the fact that the start of the universe has little to nothing to do with the arguments for God as being the unmoved mover, first cause, whose necessity is intrinsic, and who must be pure act, etc…
Something which is unstable can be uncaused cause. It was there. It burst because it was unstable.Wesrock already explained (#2) why this cannot be the first uncaused cause.
You’re talking about a moment in time over an infinite span.Something which is unstable can be uncaused cause. It was there. It burst because it was unstable.
I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine.You’re talking about a moment in time over an infinite span.
But you cannot traverse an infinite.
Where did the “unstable energy” come from?Why the first uncaused-cause cannot be a form of unstable energy (inflation theory) which existed before Big Bang? Why do we need all other extra attributes like omniscience, omnipresent,etc assigned to a being so called God? Isn’t the minimal model the best?
It was just there, like God, uncuased cause.Where did the “unstable energy” come from?
I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine.
Do you know what I mean when I say “you cannot traverse an infinite”?Something which is unstable can be uncaused cause. It was there. It burst because it was unstable.
No.Do you know what I mean when I say “you cannot traverse an infinite”?
And yet it produced this orderly universe with all the laws of physics and all the incredible variety of phenomena that interact in such intricate patterns and relationships. How can a clutch of unstable energy be responsible for all this?It was just there, like God, uncuased cause.
This is the simplest model that physicists have ever found. You can read more in here.And yet it produced this orderly universe with all the laws of physics and all the incredible variety of phenomena that interact in such intricate patterns and relationships. How can a clutch of unstable energy be responsible for all this?
No, the relevant next question is: How do you describe God? Say something about God.Needless to say that I am open to the concept of God only as the creator. The relevant question is then, How God did it?
That is an essential point for you to understand. You cannot understand cosmological arguments or many others if you do not understand that.
God: A being with the ability to create. This is however a definition. We need to know how He did it. The act of creation should be logically possible therefore it should be understandable by a intellectual agent who is cognitively open to logic, human for example.No, the relevant next question is: How do you describe God? Say something about God.