Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #150]

Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.

Because it exists and cannot be 'unseen' once it is seen.

Everything stems from the point of something which has always existed and that something has always had a mind.

Why can't those who aren't 'they', accept that?

One way to go about doing so, is to accept that the universe has never not existed.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #150]

Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.

Because it exists and cannot be 'unseen' once it is seen.

Everything stems from the point of something which has always existed and that something has always had a mind.

Why can't those who aren't 'they', accept that?

One way to go about doing so, is to accept that the universe has never not existed.

There are two possibilities, conceptually:
1. Existence has always been,
2. Existence began,
from this there are two choices:
A. It began from nothing
B. God did it (therefore God has always existed)

Since theists insist 'God' is the uncaused cause and has no beginning, they inherently agree [something] can have always existed without a beginning or a 'cause.' Then they claim (somehow) that 'something' can only be (their version of a) God.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #150]

Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.

Because it exists and cannot be 'unseen' once it is seen.

Everything stems from the point of something which has always existed and that something has always had a mind.

Why can't those who aren't 'they', accept that?

One way to go about doing so, is to accept that the universe has never not existed.

There are two possibilities, conceptually:
1. Existence has always been,
2. Existence began,
from this there are two choices:
A. It began from nothing
B. God did it (therefore God has always existed)

Possibility 2 introduces layers.

Layer [A] is illogical. Something cannot begin from nothing, because this infers that nothing once existed and that something magically appeared from nothing.

{B] is illogical because it is built of the premise of [A], which itself is illogical.

Since theists insist 'God' is the uncaused cause and has no beginning, they inherently agree [something] can have always existed without a beginning or a 'cause.' Then they claim (somehow) that 'something' can only be (their version of a) God.

Versions of 'god' can only ever be incomplete in relation to A&B

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #149]
I believe you have yet to address the central point of this thread, the fact that the proponents of the Cosmological argument (Kalam or otherwise) carve out a single exception to their necessary cause arguments. Tho' they dress them up in different ways and words, and invent new ways of looking at time to support the conclusion they start with, they allow for a single "uncaused cause" and call it a 'personal God.'
Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.

This is tongue in cheek of course, but it illustrates a point. I've imagined that perhaps God was given a chemistry set for Christmas and while playing with it he accidentally blew himself up. He died as a result, but his remnants became the universe.

The serious point is that not only might this "uncaused caused" not be personal but may not even exist any longer. Why would it need to be eternal? As you say, claiming that this "uncaused cause" is a 'personal God' is quite a leap. An additional problem is when it is claimed that this 'personal God' must be the Christian God. That's an additional unsupported and unnecessary leap.


Tcg

[historia]

I believe you have yet to address the central point of this thread, the fact that the proponents of the Cosmological argument (Kalam or otherwise) carve out a single exception to their necessary cause arguments.

It seems, then, you've missed the thrust of my objections. As I noted back in my first reply, your point is predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts.

If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point. To advance that claim while making an exception for God would, indeed, be special pleading.

But, as we saw above, Christian philosophers are not claiming "everything" has a cause. Instead, Aquinas contends that things that are changing (in motio) have a cause for their change. Craig contends that things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence. God is not an "exception" to these arguments. Rather, God doesn't fit them at all.

Nor is God the only thing that doesn't fit these arguments. Abstract objects are also thought to be unchanging and timeless.

Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause?

What do you mean by "existence itself"?

And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind.

Craig lays out the essential argument for why he thinks the First Cause is personal in the article you cited above:

Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago.

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Did you perhaps skip that part?

Tho' they . . . invent new ways of looking at time

Again, no one is "inventing new ways of looking at time." Craig simply accepts the A-theory of time. The A-theory is the older (common sense or experiential) view of time. The B-theory is the newer way of looking at time.

[Diogenes]

It seems, then, you've missed the thrust of my objections. As I noted back in my first reply, your point is predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts.

If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point. To advance that claim while making an exception for God would, indeed, be special pleading.

That is exactly what they are doing. That is the claim, that everything has a cause, except God.GOD is the special pleading.

Part I treats of God, who is the "first cause, himself uncaused" (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu)—i.e. pure actuality without potentiality, and therefore without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectus. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. In this connection the thoughts of the unity, infinity, unchangeability, and goodness of the highest being are deduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

This "absolutely perfect being" claim provides the destruction of the Ontological 'proof' as well as the Cosmological. See viewtopic.php?p=1075447#p1075447

For clarity, let's go back to your central statement, "If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point."
As I've said, that is exactly what they are claiming. If not, who or what besides "God" 'has a cause?'

[historia]

For clarity, let's go back to your central statement, "If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point."

As I've said, that is exactly what they are claiming.

If this is exactly what they are claiming, then why haven't you quoted them claiming exactly that?

In the references you cited above, neither Aquinas nor Craig says "everything" must have a cause. Nor does the Wikipedia article you just cited indicate that Aquinas says "everything" must have a cause.

Let's recall what "special pleading" entails:

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle

Neither Craig nor Aquinas sets out the universal principle that "everything" must have a cause.

The conclusion that the universe has a cause but God doesn't may well be wrong, but it is not special pleading.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to historia in post #157]
I note you did not answer the key question,
"Who or what besides "God" 'has a cause?'"

You go through all of this, post after post, but don't address the central point, that 'God' alone is the only possible 'uncaused cause.' If your favorites, Aquinas and WLC, or whomever, do NOT claim everything but 'god' has a cause, please tell us about the other 'first' or 'uncaused' causes out there.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #150]

Why can't they accept existence itself as an uncaused cause? And why must their uncaused cause have to be a personal God or even a god of any kind. This is the core of the question, this special pleading built on unfounded premises.

Because it exists and cannot be 'unseen' once it is seen.

Everything stems from the point of something which has always existed and that something has always had a mind.

Why can't those who aren't 'they', accept that?

One way to go about doing so, is to accept that the universe has never not existed.

There are two possibilities, conceptually:
1. Existence has always been,
2. Existence began,
from this there are two choices:
A. It began from nothing
B. God did it (therefore God has always existed)

Possibility 2 introduces layers.

Layer [A] is illogical. Something cannot begin from nothing, because this infers that nothing once existed and that something magically appeared from nothing.

{B] is illogical because it is built of the premise of [A], which itself is illogical.

Since theists insist 'God' is the uncaused cause and has no beginning, they inherently agree [something] can have always existed without a beginning or a 'cause.' Then they claim (somehow) that 'something' can only be (their version of a) God.

Versions of 'god' can only ever be incomplete in relation to A&B

Invalid argument. Yes, 'Something from nothing' is ...not illogical exactly but counter -intuitive, because it is not what we are used to seeing. But you know (or should, as I've pointed it out) it was once considered that nobody could live on the 'underneath' of the earth because they'd fall off. That made perfect logic but is wrong because of limited human understanding.

This analogy means that you cannot say that 'something from nothing' is illogical and suppose that this means that Goddunnit has to be the only answer. Especially as a claim of a complex intelligent entity with no origin of its' own is even more illogical than a near nothing (matter /energy) coming from Nothing. (various versions of "God" is a red -herring here)

For clarity, let's go back to your central statement, "If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point."

As I've said, that is exactly what they are claiming.

If this is exactly what they are claiming, then why haven't you quoted them claiming exactly that?

In the references you cited above, neither Aquinas nor Craig says "everything" must have a cause. Nor does the Wikipedia article you just cited indicate that Aquinas says "everything" must have a cause.

Let's recall what "special pleading" entails:

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle

Neither Craig nor Aquinas sets out the universal principle that "everything" must have a cause.

The conclusion that the universe has a cause but God doesn't may well be wrong, but it is not special pleading.

Yes it is, as an argument, if it were to be made, irrespective of whether anyone actually made it or indeed (as both Lane -Craig and Aquinas must have had in mind) implied as the conclusion of an argument.

The very idea that everything else has to have a Cause, but "God" doesn't is a logically invalid proposition because it is implicit special pleading, whether anyone actually posts that argument or not.

What this means (of course) is that the very implication is invalid before the debate even gets started and anyone arguing that because Something cannot come from Nothing, an intelligent creator must be the explanation is a non - starter before they even start.

[Diogenes]

For clarity, let's go back to your central statement, "If Christian philosophers were claiming that "everything" has a cause, then you would have a fair point."

As I've said, that is exactly what they are claiming.

If this is exactly what they are claiming, then why haven't you quoted them claiming exactly that?

Why leave out my question, "If not, who or what besides "God" 'has a cause?'" I repeat, who or what does Craig claim has no 'cause' besides God? This is why it is a special pleading.