Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Actually no. A number of any quantity is something.

The number zero may stand for the quantity of nothing but it is not nothing since it is a number. This is true.

Not if there is nothing to begin with.

rossum:

Our material universe has zero energy, so in that sense it is nothing.

AINg:

Negative gravitational energy together with positive energy of matter is not nothing although the total combined energy does add up to zero.
For another example take the case of a person who has no debts and has no money in the bank. This would be different from the case of a person who has a debt of $1000 and has a bank account of $1000. The total amount of money owed is the same ($0) in both cases, but the cases are qualitatively different although quantitatively they may be the same.

you’re talking about effects after they are caused

Without the first cause, from the uncaused cause, there is nothing.

 

[laylow]

said by those who have no faith. Keep reading in Ecclesiastes.

AND here is from even a non Catholic perspective, another explanation

I’ve read many explanations and I do not buy them. I believe that the writer of Ecclesiastes didn’t believe in an afterlife.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

said by those who have no faith. Keep reading in Ecclesiastes.

AND here is from even a non Catholic perspective, another explanation

I’ve read many explanations and I do not buy them. I believe that the writer of Ecclesiastes didn’t believe in an afterlife.

That maybe true and maybe it’s false. I say it that way because Solomon may have been unsure

For example
Ch 3 of Ecc
“Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

IOW, man and beast die and go to the ground. But what about the spirit?

Solomon

1. is NOT saying the spirit dies with the body
2. separates the animal spirit from the human spirit
3. leaves open the human spirit rises
4. is NOT ruling out the afterlife being eternal for the spirit

AND

Solomon teaches about good decent living. Why if it has no lasting value after one dies? It suggests he’s not ruling out the next life.

 

[rossum]

we wouldn’t know about the uncaused cause unless the uncaused cause showed us who He is.

Or unless we discovered evidence for such an uncaused cause, such as the multiverse.

If your cause is a “He” then there are a lot of other uncaused things, such as X and Y chromosomes, and hence DNA. Are you telling us that you have no explanation for the cause of DNA?

Whenever you ascribe a property to your proposed uncaused cause, such as intelligence or maleness, then that is just another thing for which you have no explanation for the cause. You already have more than one uncaused thing; I suggest that you stop adding to the list.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

we wouldn’t know about the uncaused cause unless the uncaused cause showed us who He is.

Or unless we discovered evidence for such an uncaused cause, such as the multiverse.

universes are created. They just don’t show up from nothing.

rossum:

If your cause is a "He"

God, the uncaused cause who created everything that is

rossum:

then there are a lot of other uncaused things, such as X and Y chromosomes, and hence DNA. Are you telling us that you have no explanation for the cause of DNA?

NONE of that would even exist if not for the first cause. NONE of those you mention are first cause. They had to be caused or THEY wouldn’t exist

rossum:

Whenever you ascribe a property to your proposed uncaused cause, such as intelligence or maleness, then that is just another thing for which you have no explanation for the cause. You already have more than one uncaused thing; I suggest that you stop adding to the list.

rossum

God is The uncaused cause. He’s eternal, there is never a time when He didn’t exist. From Him all that is came into existence. Without Him there is no creation, and therefore, nothing created.

 

[rossum]

God, the uncaused cause who created everything that is

False. God exists, so He “is”. He did not create Himself. Hence you are wrong. I have pointed this error out to you earlier in this thread; why do you persist in arguing in favour of an error.

At most your God created “everything that is except Himself”

Such obviously incorrect statements will not convince me.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

God, the uncaused cause who created everything that is

False. God exists, so He “is”. He did not create Himself. Hence you are wrong. I have pointed this error out to you earlier in this thread; why do you persist in arguing in favour of an error.

At most your God created “everything that is except Himself”

Such obviously incorrect statements will not convince me.

rossum

I never said God created Himself, or that He had to create anything…

If He created NOTHING, that doesn’t change God or who He is.

 

[rossum]

I never said God created Himself

Yes you did. You said that he “created everything that is”. If He exists, then He is. And you are (incorrectly) claiming that He created Himself – an obvious logical failure.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I never said God created Himself

Yes you did. You said that he “created everything that is”. If He exists, then He is. And you are (incorrectly) claiming that He created Himself – an obvious logical failure.

rossum

you’re not understanding.

God doesn’t create Himself. God is not a creation. He never had a beginning. He always is.

 

[rossum]

God doesn’t create Himself. God is not a creation. He never had a beginning. He always is.

Then stop saying, wrongly, that “God created everything that is”. You should say, “God created everything that is _ except Himself_”.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

God doesn’t create Himself. God is not a creation. He never had a beginning. He always is.

Then stop saying, wrongly, that “God created everything that is”. You should say, “God created everything that is _ except Himself_”.

rossum

Again, you don’t understand. The “uncaused cause” means “always there”. That’s God. He is uncaused. Meaning He didn’t cause Himself. He always is. From God then comes everything that is, meaning all things created.

 

[rossum]

Again, you don’t understand.

I do understand.

The “uncaused cause” means “always there”.

Why? A cause does not have to outlive its effect.

That’s God. He is uncaused. Meaning He didn’t cause Himself. He always is. From God then comes everything that is, meaning all things created.

Good, you understand my point. God did not create “everything”, He created “everything except Himself”. Now you just need to rephrase your “everything that is”, otherwise you are implying that God is not, which I am sure you do not want to do.

Otherwise you are using Humpty Dumpty argumentation, which is pointless.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

Again, you don’t understand.

I do understand.

steve-b:

The “uncaused cause” means “always there”.

Why? A cause does not have to outlive its effect.

steve-b:

When God created the human soul, He created something that will never die. Once created, It will live forever. The body will die but not the soul.

That said

it’s imperative then, that the individual soul, when the body dies, ends up in heaven not hell. Because both possibilities are real.

steve-b:

That’s God. He is uncaused. Meaning He always is. From God then comes everything that is, meaning all things created.

rossum:

Good, you understand my point. God did not create “everything”, He created “everything except Himself”. Now you just need to rephrase your “everything that is”, otherwise you are implying that God is not, which I am sure you do not want to do.

Otherwise you are using Humpty Dumpty argumentation, which is pointless.

rossum

As I said you don’t understand.

God is NOT a creation. He wasn’t created. He always is.

Everything you use to try and explain the existence of anything, from your POV, are all things created (caused) by God. Without God creating, there is nothing, nor the beginning of anything.

 

[rossum]

Without God creating, there is nothing

Wrong. There is God, and God is not nothing. Are you denying that God is eternal (He did not exist before creating) or are you saying that creation is eternal, and hence has no need of a creator?

Your argument here is very confused.

rossum

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Without God creating, there is nothing

Wrong. There is God, and God is not nothing.

OK, but He’s not a thing either. God is 3 persons Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, in ONE God.

rossum:

Are you denying that God is eternal (He did not exist before creating) or are you saying that creation is eternal, and hence has no need of a creator?

Your argument here is very confused.

I said very clearly God is eternal

It’s obvious what you are doing.

There is no discussing with you when you resort to misrepresenting like that. Have a nice day.

 

[rossum]

I said very clearly God is eternal

And you also said, incorrectly, that God created “everything that is”. You should have made an exception for God in that statement, since God did not create Himself.

If God is not a thing, then God is no-thing; that is what the words mean.

rossum

 

[PickyPicky]

That must be what they call a meeting of minds.

 

[AlNg]

The “uncaused cause” means “always there”.

Could the universe as a whole be an uncaused cause which was always there?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The “uncaused cause” means “always there”.

Could the universe as a whole be an uncaused cause which was always there?

No.

it begs a designer, more intelligent and powerful than a universe that has no intelligence or ability to exist or reason to exist

 

[AlNg]

it begs a designer

I don’t see how the universe could beg for anything. Where is the contradiction in assuming that the universe is an uncaused cause which was always there?