Why there is only one uncaused-cause?

[STT]

I can agree with the fact that an uncaused-cause is needed for a universe. But what if there are two universes that are causally independent. The uncaused-cause could be different for each universe.

 

[po18guy]

Two uncaused causes would, in the realm of physics, most certainly be incompatible at some level and “universal” conflict would occur. Rather, we see harmony, symmetry, beauty. That points to a single source.

Why?

I’m dying to find out.

 

[lelinator]

I can agree with the fact that an uncaused-cause is needed for a universe. But what if there are two universes that are causally independent. The uncaused-cause could be different for each universe.

Since none of the metaphysicists seem to want to take a shot at this…I will.

We need a means of differentiating one thing from another thing. Maybe one’s here and one’s there, or one’s big and one’s small, or one’s black and one’s white. But to have two distinct things you need a means of differentiating between them.

Now let’s begin to eliminate these means of differentiating things. Let’s say that we eliminate time and space as a means of differentiating between things. There still may be something else that differentiates one thing from the other. Perhaps there are other dimensions, or attributes by which we can differentiate them. So let’s continue to eliminate attributes until there’s only one left by which to differentiate between things.

What we have left is that which makes the existence of all the other distinct things possible. And there can’t be two of these things, because there’s no way left to distinguish between them. So there must be only one of them.

This is how I imagine a metaphysicist would answer this question. Personally, I think that once you’ve eliminated time and space as differentiating factors, then it becomes impossible to distinguish cause and effect, and so everything that’s left would be indistinguishable as separate things, and so would simply be considered as differing attributes of the same thing.

 

[Wesrock]

lelinator actually hits the nail pretty much on the head. The Uncaused Cause is immaterial, and so cannot be differentiated by its material, and it’s eternal and non-localizable, and so not differentiable by place in time or space. That leaves it to only be differentiated by its essence (what it is, and due to the factors mentioned above, since it cannot be differentiated by matter or spacetime, any two examples that are the same thing must by identity actually be the same thing).

But furthermore, if we take that the Uncaused Cause must be pure actuality, let’s look at your different Uncaused Cause for each universe example. If there is more than one they must both be the same thing but also differentiated by its essence in some way. So one is Pure Actuality - (minus) A and the other is Pure Actuality - B, such that PA-B lacks something PA-A has and vice versa. But if that’s the case, neither is ultimately Pure Actuality or subsistent being itself, but some type of being conditioned by lacking A or B. And so neither could in principle be the Uncaused Cause and must have themselves be caused, since they neither Subsistent Being nor Simple.

The Uncaused Cause is the first (in principle) of all things that exist, not just this first of this universe or that universe. Anything that is not First of All That Exists must be ontologically dependent in some way on something else for its existence.

 

[STT]

Two uncaused causes would, in the realm of physics, most certainly be incompatible at some level and “universal” conflict would occur. Rather, we see harmony, symmetry, beauty. That points to a single source.

The question is about two uncaused-cause for two universes.

Why?

I’m dying to find out.

Same here.

 

[po18guy]

The question is about two uncaused-cause for two universes.

Unless we are addressing parallel universes, or some sort of time space overlap or multi-layered existence, that’s what I was trying to address.

 

[IWantGod]

But furthermore, if we take that the Uncaused Cause must be pure actuality, let’s look at your different Uncaused Cause for each universe example. If there is more than one they must both be the same thing but also differentiated by its essence in some way. So one is Pure Actuality - (minus) A and the other is Pure Actuality - B, such that PA-B lacks something PA-A has and vice versa. But if that’s the case, neither is ultimately Pure Actuality or subsistent being itself, but some type of being conditioned by lacking A or B. And so neither could in principle be the Uncaused Cause and must have themselves be caused, since they neither Subsistent Being nor Simple.

Exactly. God bless.

 

[STT]

Since none of the metaphysicists seem to want to take a shot at this…I will.

We need a means of differentiating one thing from another thing. Maybe one’s here and one’s there, or one’s big and one’s small, or one’s black and one’s white. But to have two distinct things you need a means of differentiating between them.

Now let’s begin to eliminate these means of differentiating things. Let’s say that we eliminate time and space as a means of differentiating between things. There still may be something else that differentiates one thing from the other. Perhaps there are other dimensions, or attributes by which we can differentiate them. So let’s continue to eliminate attributes until there’s only one left by which to differentiate between things.

What we have left is that which makes the existence of all the other distinct things possible. And there can’t be two of these things, because there’s no way left to distinguish between them. So there must be only one of them.

The essence of two universes could be different. That means that you could have exactly the same universe with different essences. We just cannot distinguish them but they exist. Moreover a universe does not have a location. So, it is easy now for you to imagine two universes which have no locations. You need to think of two different things which have no location.

This is how I imagine a metaphysicist would answer this question. Personally, I think that once you’ve eliminated time and space as differentiating factors, then it becomes impossible to distinguish cause and effect, and so everything that’s left would be indistinguishable as separate things, and so would simply be considered as differing attributes of the same thing.

I am afraid that your argument doesn’t work.

 

[IWantGod]

I can agree with the fact that an uncaused-cause is needed for a universe.

I think Wesrock explained it the best, but just for the sake of enjoyment i will chime in.

There can be many numbers of the same nature because their nature is not a necessary or natural expression of reality. In other-words their nature is not identical with existence but only participate in the act of existence contingently, and so their nature can be caused to exist a potentially infinite number of times. If it were the nature of fundamental necessary reality to be a duck, then there would be only one duck, because there would be no other ducks apart from what is necessarily a duck, and what necessarily exists cannot be unnecessary. Thus another duck would be unnecessary since it is not a part of what is necessarily a duck. In fact it would not be a duck at all since in this case everything that is true of a duck is only true of what is necessary.

When we infer the existence of the uncaused cause, we are also inferencing something that necessarily exists. In other-words it is a natural act of existence. Which means that everything that is true of what makes a thing necessarily real is a natural expression of it’s reality, and it has the fullness of that reality insomuch as it lacks no reality that is true to it’s necessary nature.

If there was another identical uncaused cause (lets call it UCC-2), this would lead to a contradiction because it would have something that is not true to the necessary act of existence of UCC-1, while at the same time being identical in nature. The thing that is making it distinct is having a necessary act of existence apart from UCC-1. So in effect UCC-1 would lack that which is required to be necessary in the act of UCC-2 and as such would lack necessary reality. But UCC-1 already has everything that is intrinsic and fundamental to having a necessary act of existence and thus UCC-2 has nothing to differentiate it’s existence from UCC-1 like @lelinator pointed out. And since there is nothing to truly make them distinct UCC-2 should not exist, and if it did it would be necessary reality and would lack that which is true to the act of necessary reality at the same time, which is a contradiction…
.

 

[STT]

lelinator actually hits the nail pretty much on the head. The Uncaused Cause is immaterial, and so cannot be differentiated by its material, and it’s eternal and non-localizable, and so not differentiable by place in time or space. That leaves it to only be differentiated by its essence (what it is, and due to the factors mentioned above, since it cannot be differentiated by matter or spacetime, any two examples that are the same thing must by identity actually be the same thing).

What do you mean with immaterial? What is matterial? Why uncauses-cause must be immaterial? I can think of two things, which each has a essence, but non of them has any location.

But furthermore, if we take that the Uncaused Cause must be pure actuality, let’s look at your different Uncaused Cause for each universe example. If there is more than one they must both be the same thing but also differentiated by its essence in some way. So one is Pure Actuality - (minus) A and the other is Pure Actuality - B, such that PA-B lacks something PA-A has and vice versa. But if that’s the case, neither is ultimately Pure Actuality or subsistent being itself, but some type of being conditioned by lacking A or B. And so neither could in principle be the Uncaused Cause and must have themselves be caused, since they neither Subsistent Being nor Simple.

Why uncaused-cause has to be pure actuality? It only needs to exist. I can imagine two pure actual things with different essences while their other attributes are the same.

The Uncaused Cause is the first (in principle) of all things that exist, not just this first of this universe or that universe. Anything that is not First of All That Exists must be ontologically dependent in some way on something else for its existence.

Let’s see how the discussion follows.