Arguments against first cause/uncaused cause?

[BearCavalry]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

[Ionian_Tradition]

I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

Then I am inclined to ask, from what substance did this "uncaused cause" create the universe? Most first cause proponents claim the uncaused cause created the universe from "nothing". However, "nothing" is not a "thing" upon which causal influence can be exerted. It is the absence of all things. Thus "nothing" is not a thing from which other things can be created. This creates a problem for the first cause argument. To say that the "uncaused cause" created the universe "ex nihilo" is to claim that the uncaused cause affected nothing and yet somehow, by virtue of having affected nothing, produced a corresponding effect (the universe). But a cause which affects nothing cannot be the cause of any corresponding effect. This is because there can exist no causal correlation, or relationship shared, between an affectless cause (a cause which affects nothing) and an effect which is produced as a result of causal affect. This would be the equivalent of fallaciously claiming that a carpenter could effectively serve as the cause of a table without ever having touched the wood of which the table is comprised. This curious line of reasoning unwittingly places the first cause proponent in a rather awkward position in that the very idea of "creatio ex nihilo" serves to undermine the affect/effect relationship necessary for any causal sequence of events to occur, thus resulting in an argument for a universe emerging uncaused (unaffected) from "nothing". It might therefore be said, rather ironically, that it is in fact first cause proponents which truly argue that "something comes from nothing".

Beautiful question. It goes into kabbalistic ideas deeper than I know much about, but I'll give a basic comparison. I can't think of any reason to accept this explanation without appealing to Judaism as a foundation, but you can see that it's feasible.

Think of a man with a purple coat on. Now think of him running along a dirt road on a beautiful countryside. Does that man exist? Sort of; not in the same sense that you do. But you could imagine a whole world for him, and you gave all of it its own level of existence without needing an existing imaginary world. In that way, you could say our universe wasn't created completely ex nihilo, but as a new sub-existence.

Again, I'm by no means an expert in Kabbalah, just giving a rough comparison.

Are you positing Idealism?

[Ionian_Tradition]

Greetings StephanM,

What might compel an entity, uncompelled by prior causes, to choose anything I wonder?

This would have to be something internal to the entity

Choice is predicated upon knowledge, yet knowledge is acquired through experience, be it internal or external. If the knowledge regarding how to create a physical universe is that which prompted choice within the mind of an intelligent cause, that knowledge must have been acquired through experiences associated with things external to the cause (matter, space, physical force, etc). It might be said then that since such a choice requires instruction from an external referent, it cannot be wholly internal.

Are you arguing for spontaneous action in the form of uncaused choice? If so, I do not see why entities lacking intelligence cannot perform similarly uncaused actions.

An action without understanding, evaluating, and choosing is not a choice.

I agree, but regarding the origin of the universe, why must choice be the sole catalyst?

I don't see any options other than causation and choice, so if it's not causation, it must be choice. Can you think of a third option?

If choice requires knowledge which is acquired through experiences derived from both the internal and external world, then "uncaused", wholly internal choices made concerning the creation of properties which can only be known through experience of an external world cannot exist.

Take matter for example. Matter is an intrinsic property of our universe. It is not however an intrinsic property of an immaterial mind which precedes the material universe. Now for such a mind to know what matter is, knowledge of matter must be made known through some external experience of matter which is separate and distinct from the immaterial mind...(Again, this is because matter is not intrinsic to the immaterial mind, and therefore cannot be known through internal experience). Oddly enough, this would require the existence of matter, or something like it, prior to the creation of our universe. Now, since there are no set of conditions under which a immaterial mind could acquire knowledge of matter through mere internal observation of itself, a immaterial mind could not choose to create matter (This is because a mind cannot choose to create that which it does not first know). It therefore must be the case that if the immaterial mind of our uncaused cause is to choose to create a universe comprised of matter, it must first acquire knowledge of what matter is through experience of something separate and distinct from itself. If this is the case, it seems that whatever the viable options are regarding how the universe came about, a uncaused, wholly internal, choice to create the universe from scratch does not seem to be among them.

With that said, random spontaneity seems to be the only remaining option... lest we posit the existence of material entities which require no "first cause" from which the uncaused cause might acquire knowledge concerning the properties of matter and such..

Moreover, I cannot see how a spontaneous uncaused/ uninformed action is to be considered a conscious/intelligent "choice" in any meaningful way.

I don't think I suggested this

You posit a choice to create which is uncompelled by prior/external causes correct?

[scourge99]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

Let us assume that there is an uncaused thing which caused the universe. I still don't see how it must be intelligent, a being, or all powerful. The only conclusions we can make is that it must be some thing. It must be uncaused. And it must have created the universe somehow.

A god definitely could fit that criteria but that is not that same thing as saying that it could only be a god that can fit that criteria. Even if we assume there is an uncaused causer, that doesn't get us any closer to proving or demonstrating its a god.

Since nobody addressed it before, am I allowed to quote myself?

An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

1) assuming this is true, it does not demonstrate that the entity that caused the universe made a choice. E.G., the entity could have unintentionally created the universe or created the universe as the result of some other uncaused entity bumping into it which caused the creation of the universe. In other words, unless
X) unintentional actions are "choices"
Or
XX) uncaused entities can't unintentionally do anything
and
XXX) its been demonstrated that there is one and only one uncaused entity
and
XXXX) this entity does not consist of any sub-entities that can act freely from the others.

then it does not necessarily follow that the universe was caused as result of a "choice" by this entity. Thus the rest of your argument falls apart.


2) i think your definition of "choice" is ambiguous and problematic. If an action must be caused by something it can either arise from within the entity itself, from outside the entity, or a combination of both. Agreed?

Some computers, though created, can work autonomously (like UAVs) . By your definition they can make choices because some of their actions arise from within themselves (their program) which is wholly self contained.

Similarly, would you agree that animals make choices (if not, why not)? Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a choice when it comes to organisms? For example, when an amoeba eats a bacteria did it "choose" to do so? When a squirrel stores food for the winter, is it choosing to do so? When i go to the store and pick up a steak for dinner, did i choose to do so?

3) experiments have been done which demonstrate that at least some human choices (possibly all) are causal because they can be predicted with accuracy significantly greater than chance. This creates a lot of problems for your claim that choice requires intelligence because if some or all human choices are the result of causal forces then any causal system would qualify as "intelligent".
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... d_decision

[StephanM]

An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

1) assuming this is true, it does not demonstrate that the entity that caused the universe made a choice. E.G., the entity could have unintentionally created the universe or created the universe as the result of some other uncaused entity bumping into it which caused the creation of the universe. In other words, unless
X) unintentional actions are "choices"
Or
XX) uncaused entities can't unintentionally do anything
and
XXX) its been demonstrated that there is one and only one uncaused entity
and
XXXX) this entity does not consist of any sub-entities that can act freely from the others.

then it does not necessarily follow that the universe was caused as result of a "choice" by this entity. Thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

These are descriptions of a caused cause. We're discussing an uncaused cause.

2) i think your definition of "choice" is ambiguous and problematic. If an action must be caused by something it can either arise from within the entity itself, from outside the entity, or a combination of both. Agreed?

Some computers, though created, can work autonomously (like UAVs) . By your definition they can make choices because some of their actions arise from within themselves (their program) which is wholly self contained.

Similarly, would you agree that animals make choices (if not, why not)? Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a choice when it comes to organisms? For example, when an amoeba eats a bacteria did it "choose" to do so? When a squirrel stores food for the winter, is it choosing to do so? When i go to the store and pick up a steak for dinner, did i choose to do so?

3) experiments have been done which demonstrate that at least some human choices (possibly all) are causal because they can be predicted with accuracy significantly greater than chance. This creates a lot of problems for your claim that choice requires intelligence because if some or all human choices are the result of causal forces then any causal system would qualify as "intelligent".
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... d_decision

Any physical reaction is cause, not choice. So a UAV, whose "decision" making is merely a series of physical reactions, does not choose. As for an amoeba, squirrel, or you: that depends on your opinion of whether you believe they're purely physical entities, or they have some non-physical decision-making capacity. [yarmulke]I believe that man kind is a combination. Since our purpose for living is to improve ourselves through choosing good/better over evil/worse, those situations that are completely non-moral are not where our true selves act, but are merely automatic functions of our physical shells, like a squirrel. So was there a moral decision in your steak choice? Are you healthy enough that a slab of red meat won't hurt you? Do you have a spouse/children that you have a responsibility to be healthy for? Did you consider how humanely the animal was treated?[/yarmulke] In order to perform an uncaused action, the entity must have a non-physical decision-making capacity.

[StephanM]

Greetings StephanM,

What might compel an entity, uncompelled by prior causes, to choose anything I wonder?

This would have to be something internal to the entity

Choice is predicated upon knowledge, yet knowledge is acquired through experience, be it internal or external. If the knowledge regarding how to create a physical universe is that which prompted choice within the mind of an intelligent cause, that knowledge must have been acquired through experiences associated with things external to the cause (matter, space, physical force, etc). It might be said then that since such a choice requires instruction from an external referent, it cannot be wholly internal.

For humans, yes, we acquire knowledge through experience, because we start with a blank slate. This isn't necessarily true of a non-human, non-physical entity though.

Are you arguing for spontaneous action in the form of uncaused choice? If so, I do not see why entities lacking intelligence cannot perform similarly uncaused actions.

An action without understanding, evaluating, and choosing is not a choice.

I agree, but regarding the origin of the universe, why must choice be the sole catalyst?

[center]
My next line answered that
|
V[/center]

I don't see any options other than causation and choice, so if it's not causation, it must be choice. Can you think of a third option?

If choice requires knowledge which is acquired through experiences derived from both the internal and external world, then "uncaused", wholly internal choices made concerning the creation of properties which can only be known through experience of an external world cannot exist.

Take matter for example. Matter is an intrinsic property of our universe. It is not however an intrinsic property of an immaterial mind which precedes the material universe. Now for such a mind to know what matter is, knowledge of matter must be made known through some external experience of matter which is separate and distinct from the immaterial mind...(Again, this is because matter is not intrinsic to the immaterial mind, and therefore cannot be known through internal experience). Oddly enough, this would require the existence of matter, or something like it, prior to the creation of our universe. Now, since there are no set of conditions under which a immaterial mind could acquire knowledge of matter through mere internal observation of itself, a immaterial mind could not choose to create matter (This is because a mind cannot choose to create that which it does not first know). It therefore must be the case that if the immaterial mind of our uncaused cause is to choose to create a universe comprised of matter, it must first acquire knowledge of what matter is through experience of something separate and distinct from itself. If this is the case, it seems that whatever the viable options are regarding how the universe came about, a uncaused, wholly internal, choice to create the universe from scratch does not seem to be among them.

With that said, random spontaneity seems to be the only remaining option... lest we posit the existence of material entities which require no "first cause" from which the uncaused cause might acquire knowledge concerning the properties of matter and such..

The above statements depend on knowledge requiring experience, which (as stated above) I don't agree with.

Moreover, I cannot see how a spontaneous uncaused/ uninformed action is to be considered a conscious/intelligent "choice" in any meaningful way.

I don't think I suggested this

You posit a choice to create which is uncompelled by prior/external causes correct?

Yes, but I don't see how that suggests that the uncaused action was uninformed.

[Nickman]

I've always believed that the argument of first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God.

It doesn't prove whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Jainists have the right idea about God. It doesn't prove whether God is good or evil. It doesn't prove whether God is a personal, loving entity or something as impersonal as some self-causing physics concept that propogates the galaxy.

But I think it does prove the existence of God if God is defined as an entity so infinitely powerful that it becomes self-causing by permeating all time and space. I just don't logically see how something could come out of nothing. In my opinion, that's an absolute, self-evident truth the way Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is. However, I was curious if any of the cynics had anything to say.

The first-cause argument doesn't make claim to what is the first cause and jumping to a conclusion such as a deity is just dishonest. How can you go from, there is a first cause, to it must be a god?

Kalams argument is a little better than the first-cause becuase it states "what begins to exist" instead of "all things that exist". With the first-cause argument it is easy to dismiss on the grounds that god is also not exempt from needing a first-cause. That is why WLC reworded it into the Kalams argument which he tries to eliminate this problem.

In both arguments, there is no honest way to jump from, "there is a first-cause" into "the first cause is a god". This is wrong. All that this argument can establish is that there was a cause. It is pure speculation as to what that cause is. Now we can eliminate the gods of this earth by looking at their creation stories and seeing if they even agree on some very simple points. Example; Yahweh, he gets the entire creation wrong by order of events. So he is eliminated. We then move on to the next god. In the end we have not made any progress and are back to the start where we already knew there was a cause.

[scourge99]

An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

1) assuming this is true, it does not demonstrate that the entity that caused the universe made a choice. E.G., the entity could have unintentionally created the universe or created the universe as the result of some other uncaused entity bumping into it which caused the creation of the universe. In other words, unless
X) unintentional actions are "choices"
Or
XX) uncaused entities can't unintentionally do anything
and
XXX) its been demonstrated that there is one and only one uncaused entity
and
XXXX) this entity does not consist of any sub-entities that can act freely from the others.

then it does not necessarily follow that the universe was caused as result of a "choice" by this entity. Thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

These are descriptions of a caused cause. We're discussing an uncaused cause.

it seems like you didn't read or didn't understand what i said because what i described are all relevant descriptions of uncaused entities.
1) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that uncaused entities can't unintentionally do things.
2) I don't see any reason to ACCEPT the idea that there is necessarily only one uncaused entity.
3) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that an uncaused entity can't be comprised of sub-entities.

2) i think your definition of "choice" is ambiguous and problematic. If an action must be caused by something it can either arise from within the entity itself, from outside the entity, or a combination of both. Agreed?

Some computers, though created, can work autonomously (like UAVs) . By your definition they can make choices because some of their actions arise from within themselves (their program) which is wholly self contained.

Similarly, would you agree that animals make choices (if not, why not)? Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a choice when it comes to organisms? For example, when an amoeba eats a bacteria did it "choose" to do so? When a squirrel stores food for the winter, is it choosing to do so? When i go to the store and pick up a steak for dinner, did i choose to do so?

3) experiments have been done which demonstrate that at least some human choices (possibly all) are causal because they can be predicted with accuracy significantly greater than chance. This creates a lot of problems for your claim that choice requires intelligence because if some or all human choices are the result of causal forces then any causal system would qualify as "intelligent".
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... d_decision

Any physical reaction is cause, not choice. So a UAV, whose "decision" making is merely a series of physical reactions, does not choose.

Computer programs are not physical. I.E., you cannot point to the location of a computer program anymore than you can point to the location of a mind. Computer programs do require physical things like computer hardware but that is similar to how minds manifest only when a physical brain is present and working. So if you are going to dismiss software programs as physical because they run on hardware then it seems you must also dismiss minds as physical because they require brains.

As for an amoeba, squirrel, or you: that depends on your opinion of whether you believe they're purely physical entities, or they have some non-physical decision-making capacity. [yarmulke]

Both. Decision making is a capability achieved by complex physical structures such as brains.

I believe that man kind is a combination. Since our purpose for living is to improve ourselves through choosing good/better over evil/worse, those situations that are completely non-moral are not where our true selves act, but are merely automatic functions of our physical shells, like a squirrel. So was there a moral decision in your steak choice? Are you healthy enough that a slab of red meat won't hurt you? Do you have a spouse/children that you have a responsibility to be healthy for? Did you consider how humanely the animal was treated?[/yarmulke]

You don't seem to have addressed much of anything I have said or asked by this. And its strange that you have changed the subject to morality.

In order to perform an uncaused action, the entity must have a non-physical decision-making capacity.

This thread is about the the universe being brought into existence by an uncaused entity. I don't see why its necessary to have an uncaused entity performing uncaused actions to create the universe. Once an uncaused entity has been established as existent (which i have assumed for the sake of argument), then it doesn't matter whether its actions are caused or not caused to create the universe.

[StephanM]

An entity performing an action without being compelled by any other cause demonstrates that it chose the action on its own. Choice requires intelligence. So whatever this entity is (the universe, or an external entity) has intelligence and made a choice on its own.

1) assuming this is true, it does not demonstrate that the entity that caused the universe made a choice. E.G., the entity could have unintentionally created the universe or created the universe as the result of some other uncaused entity bumping into it which caused the creation of the universe. In other words, unless
X) unintentional actions are "choices"
Or
XX) uncaused entities can't unintentionally do anything
and
XXX) its been demonstrated that there is one and only one uncaused entity
and
XXXX) this entity does not consist of any sub-entities that can act freely from the others.

then it does not necessarily follow that the universe was caused as result of a "choice" by this entity. Thus the rest of your argument falls apart.

These are descriptions of a caused cause. We're discussing an uncaused cause.

it seems like you didn't read or didn't understand what i said because what i described are all relevant descriptions of uncaused entities.
1) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that uncaused entities can't unintentionally do things.
2) I don't see any reason to ACCEPT the idea that there is necessarily only one uncaused entity.
3) I don't see any reason to REJECT the idea that an uncaused entity can't be comprised of sub-entities.

You're discussing an uncaused entity, which isn't the subject of this thread. This thread is about whether or not an uncaused cause (assumed) proves the concept of a god.

...first cause/uncaused cause is an unbeatable argument for proving the concept of God

2) i think your definition of "choice" is ambiguous and problematic. If an action must be caused by something it can either arise from within the entity itself, from outside the entity, or a combination of both. Agreed?

Some computers, though created, can work autonomously (like UAVs) . By your definition they can make choices because some of their actions arise from within themselves (their program) which is wholly self contained.

Similarly, would you agree that animals make choices (if not, why not)? Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a choice when it comes to organisms? For example, when an amoeba eats a bacteria did it "choose" to do so? When a squirrel stores food for the winter, is it choosing to do so? When i go to the store and pick up a steak for dinner, did i choose to do so?

3) experiments have been done which demonstrate that at least some human choices (possibly all) are causal because they can be predicted with accuracy significantly greater than chance. This creates a lot of problems for your claim that choice requires intelligence because if some or all human choices are the result of causal forces then any causal system would qualify as "intelligent".
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... d_decision

Any physical reaction is cause, not choice. So a UAV, whose "decision" making is merely a series of physical reactions, does not choose.

Computer programs are not physical. I.E., you cannot point to the location of a computer program anymore than you can point to the location of a mind. Computer programs do require physical things like computer hardware but that is similar to how minds manifest only when a physical brain is present and working. So if you are going to dismiss software programs as physical because they run on hardware then it seems you must also dismiss minds as physical because they require brains.

A computer program in the way you're thinking of it is just a label for a physical series of events. An electrical current travels down a wire and turns a switch; a simple, physical, mechanical phenomena. An electrical current goes down 3 wires: 2 of which turn a switch, and the 3rd goes right through and comes back to the root. A more complex, yet still physical, mechanical phenomena. Multiply this by a few billion and now you have a CPU running a program: still a purely physical set of phenomenon, organized in an incredible manner. Now add some chemical/biological processes and a whole lot more complexity, and now you have a brain: another purely physical entity. If you consider a mind to just be a brain, then yes, a mind would be purely physical.

As for an amoeba, squirrel, or you: that depends on your opinion of whether you believe they're purely physical entities, or they have some non-physical decision-making capacity. [yarmulke]

Both. Decision making is a capability achieved by complex physical structures such as brains.

I believe that man kind is a combination. Since our purpose for living is to improve ourselves through choosing good/better over evil/worse, those situations that are completely non-moral are not where our true selves act, but are merely automatic functions of our physical shells, like a squirrel. So was there a moral decision in your steak choice? Are you healthy enough that a slab of red meat won't hurt you? Do you have a spouse/children that you have a responsibility to be healthy for? Did you consider how humanely the animal was treated?[/yarmulke]

You don't seem to have addressed much of anything I have said or asked by this. And its strange that you have changed the subject to morality.

I know, it was a side point, which is why I put my personal Jewish opinion in a [yarmulke] tag. Naturally, you gave your opinion above too, since it's an interesting side topic.

In order to perform an uncaused action, the entity must have a non-physical decision-making capacity.

This thread is about the the universe being brought into existence by an uncaused entity. I don't see why its necessary to have an uncaused entity performing uncaused actions to create the universe. Once an uncaused entity has been established as existent (which i have assumed for the sake of argument), then it doesn't matter whether its actions are caused or not caused to create the universe.

Like I stated above, this discussion is about an uncaused cause, not an uncaused entity.

[Ionian_Tradition]

Greetings StephanM,

What might compel an entity, uncompelled by prior causes, to choose anything I wonder?

This would have to be something internal to the entity

Choice is predicated upon knowledge, yet knowledge is acquired through experience, be it internal or external. If the knowledge regarding how to create a physical universe is that which prompted choice within the mind of an intelligent cause, that knowledge must have been acquired through experiences associated with things external to the cause (matter, space, physical force, etc). It might be said then that since such a choice requires instruction from an external referent, it cannot be wholly internal.

For humans, yes, we acquire knowledge through experience, because we start with a blank slate. This isn't necessarily true of a non-human, non-physical entity though.

This is quite the assumption. What is your rationale for assuming that knowledge possessed by non-human, non-physical entities is not experiential in nature. Can you offer me an example of knowledge which is not first predicated upon prior experience?

Are you arguing for spontaneous action in the form of uncaused choice? If so, I do not see why entities lacking intelligence cannot perform similarly uncaused actions.

An action without understanding, evaluating, and choosing is not a choice.

I agree, but regarding the origin of the universe, why must choice be the sole catalyst?

[center]
My next line answered that
|
V[/center]

I don't see any options other than causation and choice, so if it's not causation, it must be choice. Can you think of a third option?

If choice requires knowledge which is acquired through experiences derived from both the internal and external world, then "uncaused", wholly internal choices made concerning the creation of properties which can only be known through experience of an external world cannot exist.

Take matter for example. Matter is an intrinsic property of our universe. It is not however an intrinsic property of an immaterial mind which precedes the material universe. Now for such a mind to know what matter is, knowledge of matter must be made known through some external experience of matter which is separate and distinct from the immaterial mind...(Again, this is because matter is not intrinsic to the immaterial mind, and therefore cannot be known through internal experience). Oddly enough, this would require the existence of matter, or something like it, prior to the creation of our universe. Now, since there are no set of conditions under which a immaterial mind could acquire knowledge of matter through mere internal observation of itself, a immaterial mind could not choose to create matter (This is because a mind cannot choose to create that which it does not first know). It therefore must be the case that if the immaterial mind of our uncaused cause is to choose to create a universe comprised of matter, it must first acquire knowledge of what matter is through experience of something separate and distinct from itself. If this is the case, it seems that whatever the viable options are regarding how the universe came about, a uncaused, wholly internal, choice to create the universe from scratch does not seem to be among them.

With that said, random spontaneity seems to be the only remaining option... lest we posit the existence of material entities which require no "first cause" from which the uncaused cause might acquire knowledge concerning the properties of matter and such..

The above statements depend on knowledge requiring experience, which (as stated above) I don't agree with.

Then would you be so kind as to demonstrate why you believe this is the case? Can you put forward an example of knowledge which is not based upon prior experience to some degree? Can you demonstrate why it is rational to assume that the properties of a thing can be known, by non-human minds, prior to their own existence and without experiential reference?

Moreover, I cannot see how a spontaneous uncaused/ uninformed action is to be considered a conscious/intelligent "choice" in any meaningful way.

I don't think I suggested this

You posit a choice to create which is uncompelled by prior/external causes correct?

Yes, but I don't see how that suggests that the uncaused action was uninformed.

How does a mind uniformed by external causes inform itself concerning that which is entirely foreign to its experience?

[StephanM]

What is your rationale for assuming that knowledge possessed by non-human, non-physical entities is not experiential in nature. Can you offer me an example of knowledge which is not first predicated upon prior experience?
...
Then would you be so kind as to demonstrate why you believe this is the case? Can you put forward an example of knowledge which is not based upon prior experience to some degree? Can you demonstrate why it is rational to assume that the properties of a thing can be known, by non-human minds, prior to their own existence and without experiential reference?
...
How does a mind uniformed by external causes inform itself concerning that which is entirely foreign to its experience?

I'm merely stating that we can't extrapolate our thought process onto an entity whose mind we know next to nothing about.