How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"

[jgh7]

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

[Wootah]

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

1 - Outside of the known universe.

2 - The first cause.

I've never heard anything that is specific to Christianity in terms of cause.

The best i can come up with is this.

If love is the first cause then God has to be love and for love to exist you need something to love. This implies trinitarianism.

Otherwise a mono God created something and loved it and then love existed.

But I'm not sold on this meaning anything in the context of this thread.

[Monta]

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

No religion worships limited God therefore there is only One.
His characteristics is that He alone has Life in Himself.
He alone is infinite (as to space) and eternal (as to time).

To give us some comprehension, love is not limited by time and space.

[wiploc]

No religion worships limited God

Horsefeathers.

therefore there is only One.

Many religions have more than one, including--depending how you count--Christianity.

[The Tanager]

(a) Logically, an eternal thing could either be caused or uncaused. For example, if the temperature of some place was eternally below freezing, then any water in existence in that place would also be eternally frozen (yet the frozen water has a cause). And there is nothing illogical about an eternal thing being uncaused. We have no experiences or intuitions of eternal things having to be only uncaused or only caused.

P1: Everything we have experienced is caused.
C: Therefore, god is uncaused.

That's some weird kind of logic.

It is. That is not even close to my (a) which you quoted, nor to the inference made concerning (b), nor to the Kalam argument I sketched out that uses (b).

In (a) we are seeing if eternal things can only be caused or only be uncaused. I see no reason to come to either of those conclusions. Logic doesn't rule out either possibility. No empirical evidence rules out either possibility, either. That's all I was saying there.

In (b) we are seeing if things that begin to exist are only caused or uncaused. Logic doesn't rule out either possibility. But we have a whole lot of observation concerning the causes of things that begin to exist. Every single thing we have observed that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

To the argument as a whole, it would be doing too much to say that everything that could ever exist must have a cause. We have no idea if that is true or not from logic and observation. So, the philosopher making the Kalam is making a narrower and much more plausible claim. We have tons and tons of observation about all different kinds of things that began to exist at some time. Every single observation has been that those things have a cause to their existence. Now, of course, this is an induction so there is still the possibility that something could begin to exist that is uncaused, but I'm interested in following where the evidence most plausibly leads. I'm not interested in holding on to a mere possibility that has been consistently, 100% of the time in our experience, been proven wrong to try to avoid a conclusion in another argument that I don't want to come to. Now, if there is other evidence offered that makes this mere possibility more plausible than its alternative, I'll gladly follow where that evidence leads. But there is no positive reason to think that things that begin to exist can be uncaused.

The Kalam argument proper is this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause

That is formally valid, informally valid and it's premises are more plausibly true than their alternatives. If you disagree, which premise is less plausible than it's alternative?

In the second part of the Kalam we see what this cause of the universe must be like:

A1: The universe has a cause
A2: The cause of the universe must either be caused or uncaused
A3: An infinite regression of causes is logically impossible
A4: To avoid an infinite regression of causes there must be an ultimate uncaused cause
C: The ultimate cause of the universe must be uncaused

And there are further arguments given for this uncaused cause being eternal, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and personal. But you need to get the flow of the argument straight and make your critiques of those arguments before we move on to the ones that build upon these.

Quantum mechanics begs to differ.

Actually it doesn't. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. Quantum particles are coming out of this quantum vacuum. That is a cause of the quantum particles. Without the quantum vacuum there are no quantum particles.

What's arbitrary is that you picked a characteristic you associate with your god. You could have picked a shade of greenish red. You could have picked a unicorn. You could have picked a flying wombat.

No, I didn't. I analyzed the concept and our experiences of things that begin to exist. That gets us to the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Then we ask "but what caused that cause?" To avoid an infinite regress of causes we logically have to say that something is uncaused. There must be an ultimate cause that is uncaused. Saying "the cause is a shade of greenish red" doesn't end the infinite regress unless it is uncaused. Saying "the cause is a unicorn" doesn't end the infinite regress unless the unicorn is uncaused. It being greenish red or a unicorn or a flying wombat is irrelevant. It being uncaused is the only relevancy.

We then say "can we know anything about this uncaused cause?" And then we give arguments (I haven't yet because you haven't gotten the flow of the argument straight yet. Once you do and either agree on the first steps or show the flaw in those steps we can take a closer look at those other arguments) for how we can see that it must be eternal, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and personal. Those rule out things that are of a greenish red shade, a unicorn, a flying wombat among many other things. The only entity it fits is the God of classical theism. So, then we make that connection.

Nothing arbitrary. Following the evidence where it leads. If you don't like the conclusion, but want to remain rational then show the flaw in the argument. If you can't find a problem there, make an argument for different characteristics of this uncaused cause that rules the God of classical theism out or find a better alternative that fits the evidence better and argue for that.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by wiploc]

That's an arbitrary and self-serving refinement. If they believed in a blue god, they'd say, "Everything that is blue has a cause."

Rather, it's a mask. Think of it in terms of Set Theory, from your high school maths class. Ever study Venn diagrams?
You have two circles (or Sets) one labelled "Begins to Exist", which is a set that contains everything that begins to exist.
You'd then have another set labelled "Does not Begin to Exist", which contains everything that does not begin to exist.

...Problem is, that once you start asking Christians what goes into the second set, it turns out that the ONLY thing that goes in there is God.
They can't allow anything else in there. If it turns out that something else other than God can be "Does Not Begin to Exist", that destroys their argument (at least this particular one) for why they believe the universe to have been created by this particular entity.
Since God is the ONLY thing that can go into the second set, and EVERYTHING else is excluded, you might as well rename the second set.
So we'd have two sets, one labelled "Begins to Exist"...and "God". Thus revealing the question begging.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by The Tanager]

And there is nothing illogical about an eternal thing being uncaused. We have no experiences or intuitions of eternal things having to be only uncaused or only caused.

Here, you're bringing up evidence, data, facts, from the real world, when it comes to purely logical arguments.
What about the lack of resurrections? Are you citing empirical data here and going where the evidence leads?

When we think about things that began to exist at some time (me, you, a table, etc.), every single experience we have ever known has involved that thing having a cause of its existence.

Myself, yourself and tables, are made of matter that, according to science, has always existed, and has come together in various forms, for now being myself, yourself and a table.
Moreover, when it comes to say a table, we are able to see the table-maker in action. Or us, if we happen to be seeing two parents make the beast with two backs.
But always, the underlying components, the very fundamental particles are there, and at no point do we observe a creator just creating them.
I suppose you'll have to declare just how far you're going to use empirical data.

The notion itself is even more magical than the 'magic' of religion that atheists will talk about ("creation ex nihilo"),

Creation ex nihilo is itself a religious term. Where do you think we got it? Atheists, particularly modern atheists, tend not to speak Latin.

If every cause has a cause, then we will never stop asking that kind of question. Answering that "it's cause is uncaused" stops that regress. Whether that uncaused cause is god or the universe or whatever, by definition, we wouldn't ask of it "what is it's cause" because it has none.

Actually no. A computer programmer could create an artificial world where in that world, everything has a cause and the world itself is caused by him. Indeed, this would fit in quite nicely with a creation ex materia view (since he'd be using computers that pre-date that world)
Does that mean the computer programmer is by definition uncaused? Nope. Seems to me that what you're doing is just arbitrarily stopping the regress at some point and insisting that here, right here, is where the causes stop.

[The Tanager]

What about the lack of resurrections? Are you citing empirical data here and going where the evidence leads?

I believe I do, but that's a completely different argument. I'll talk about that one on its own merit with you after this one, if you want. This argument stands or falls on its own merits.

Myself, yourself and tables, are made of matter that, according to science, has always existed, and has come together in various forms, for now being myself, yourself and a table.
Moreover, when it comes to say a table, we are able to see the table-maker in action. Or us, if we happen to be seeing two parents make the beast with two backs.
But always, the underlying components, the very fundamental particles are there, and at no point do we observe a creator just creating them.
I suppose you'll have to declare just how far you're going to use empirical data.

Why do you say that science tells us that matter has always existed?

Creation ex nihilo is itself a religious term. Where do you think we got it? Atheists, particularly modern atheists, tend not to speak Latin.

Not sure your point here. Theists (who spoke and wrote in Latin at the time) came up with the term. Modern atheists often try to rhetorically dismiss that religious idea by calling it "magic," but then have no problem (at least while responding to the Kalam) in asserting that something came from nothing uncaused which, extending the metaphor would be even more magical than the "magic" of something coming from nothing with a cause.

Actually no. A computer programmer could create an artificial world where in that world, everything has a cause and the world itself is caused by him. Indeed, this would fit in quite nicely with a creation ex materia view (since he'd be using computers that pre-date that world)
Does that mean the computer programmer is by definition uncaused? Nope. Seems to me that what you're doing is just arbitrarily stopping the regress at some point and insisting that here, right here, is where the causes stop.

If you think I'm saying that the ultimate cause of the universe is uncaused because it created a world ex nihilo, I'm not. How something creates something doesn't make it caused or uncaused. If the computer programmer is uncaused, then that would stop the infinite regress. If the computer programmer is caused, then the regress keeps going. The regression can go through different 'worlds'. If a multiverse theory were true, for instance, this wouldn't say anything against the Kalam. The regression has to stop at some point. At that point there must be an uncaused cause. And then we see what characteristics we can deduce concerning it. If I was trying to arbitrarily stick my view of God in there, I'd have more properties than what I've talked about.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by The Tanager]

I believe I do, but that's a completely different argument. I'll talk about that one on its own merit with you after this one, if you want.

Maybe not in this thread, but elsewhere.

Why do you say that science tells us that matter has always existed?

Conservation of Matter. To my knowledge as a layman, the only exceptions are virtual particles at the quantum scale, and they vanish as quickly as they arrive, so that the law is considered to not be violated.

Not sure your point here. Theists (who spoke and wrote in Latin at the time) came up with the term.

Yes, which was my point. The way you wrote the following

The notion itself is even more magical than the 'magic' of religion that atheists will talk about ("creation ex nihilo"),
Made it sound like you considered the ex nihilo term to be a creation of atheists, in a mockery of religion, as if we're debating a strawman.
But perhaps I misunderstood?

Modern atheists often try to rhetorically dismiss that religious idea by calling it "magic,"

You'll have to give me an example of what precisely it is you mean. If ever I try to argue against it, I point out to those Christians I am currently talking to, that they start by saying the universe couldn't have come from nothing, and then when they get to God, they assert that he created the universe from nothing.
Which is a contradiction.

but then have no problem (at least while responding to the Kalam) in asserting that something came from nothing uncaused

It's not that I (and potentially others, but I'm only going to say what it is I think here) think that something came from nothing uncaused, it's that the 'something' (the universe, for lack of a better term) is here, and apparently didn't have to come from a thing (some-thing or no-thing).
It simply is, much like the Christians say their God is.
Since it simply is, there's no need to even worry about causes. They're not a factor.

If you think I'm saying that the ultimate cause of the universe is uncaused because it created a world ex nihilo, I'm not.

Okay, noted.

How something creates something doesn't make it caused or uncaused. If the computer programmer is uncaused, then that would stop the infinite regress.

How do the 'people' (for lack of a better term) in the simulation find out though? They're stuck within it, much as we are stuck within this universe. At best, they'd be able to find out that there's a programmer who created their world.
Other than that, how are they able to find out whether that programmer is himself caused or uncaused? The programmer might communicate with them...but he could lie. Or be mistaken.

If the computer programmer is caused, then the regress keeps going. The regression can go through different 'worlds'.

How do you find out that the programmer is caused, whether my hypothetical one, or your god?
How many 'worlds'?

If a multiverse theory were true, for instance, this wouldn't say anything against the Kalam.

Looks up Kalam
How so?
Going from here, from Craig's formulation (right after the table of contents)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument
We run into problems with the second set, premise 2

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
He's quote unquote proven that the universe has a creator, and somehow, he rattles off all these different attributes that it somehow MUST have.
With multiverses, we'd have multiple universes, but how do we know that each universe has one creator? How do we know that there is only the one creator for ALL of them? What if some have one creator, some have multiple, while some have none at all?

The regression has to stop at some point. At that point there must be an uncaused cause.

Okay, and how is it you know for a fact (or as close to a fact as one can get) that the entity whom you believe created our universe IS that point? IS that uncaused cause?

And then we see what characteristics we can deduce concerning it.

Much like Craig, how is it you are able to deduce characteristics?

If I was trying to arbitrarily stick my view of God in there, I'd have more properties than what I've talked about.

Myself and other atheists think that this is Craig being deceitful. He (and others I could name) like to pretend that while each argument alone doesn't prove God (or more specifically, the God of Christianity), somehow if you take them all together, they do, even though none of these arguments (Kalam, Modal Ontological and the rest) don't really say anything concrete about the god.

[Defender of Truth]

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

The Major Premise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is normally:

"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause"

So a characteristic of an uncaused being would be a lack of beginning.

[marco]

[Replying to post 14 by The Tanager]

To reach your conclusions you are using the argument that judgment from experience is the best way of explaining, since accepting ignorance leads nowhere. You therefore impose on all things the conditions we have naively observed to be true. Matter may have always existed, in the same way that we claim God always existed. And there our investigation ends, otherwise we are trying to place the infinite in a finite box, subject to reasoning that has its imperfections.

In the end was our beginning, perhaps.