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?

[rikuoamero]

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.

I'm going to respond for jgh7 and ask you why you think answers his questions?
His OP essentially asks what are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused, are they exclusive to God or a living self-aware entity and your response, when condensed as much as possible says essentially
"The definition of an uncaused being is a lack of beginning"

...which we all already know.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by rikuoamero]

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.

The way around that is to say that the creator is not 'nothing' but 'something' and 'everything' which is created is done so in the mind of the creator.

'Nothing' therefore does not really exist, because the mind of the creator is 'something'.

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.

The problem that I have with this reasoning is that it has to either ignore the big bang (the evidence of a beginning) or shift to the idea that the universe has always existed but continually goes through the motions of beginning, expanding, contracting and ending, repeating the cycle.

But it still does not answer how it started in regard to which position of the process came first...the problem seems to center upon the fact that it appears to have had a beginning and there is no way around that.

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.

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.

This doesn't matter. The point is that it is logical that whoever began to create originally, must have always existed and was not created. We can argue that this universe was not created directly by someone who was that being who always existed - it may have been created by a being who was also created, but that is not the point. Logic tells us that one cannot simply make the claim that this process therefore has to involve infinite regress. the buck has to stop somewhere, and thus it stops at a creator being who has never been created but has always existed.

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

There is no requirement to do so in relation to first cause - The First Source.

How many 'worlds'?

It doesn't matter. It may be an extremely large finite number but also potentially an infinite number.

As a visual representation ofthe idea;



The black area represents the First Source creator who has no beginning - the fractal patterns represent 'worlds/universes' and the area encompassing the fractal patterns represent the mind of FS.

Our universe is represented as a small area of the fractal pattern and this may have other 'worlds' branching off from our main universe, exampled by what we call 'black holes' where material from our universe is crunched into an object of infinite density, to explode in its own big bang creating yet another 'world' or perhaps simply spewing out to become 'something'. Who knows, but what we do know is that there is only 'in' and 'out' so in relation to black holes, what is going in doesn't appear to be coming back out anywhere.

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.

We cannot ascertain that any creator of this particular universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless - we can only surmise what such a being might be, based upon observing the universe itself. Even so, that may only give us hints.

Even so we can ascertain that these attributes can be traced back to the First Source and that by proxy, everything - including the created - share those same attributes in relation to the Source Attributes.

Obviously though, since we are a product of this universe, way deep in the rabbit hole, consigned to individuate forms which are perishable, it appears we are not limitless but are limited.

This is why I include in my own theology the idea that we are The First Source (as aspects of Its consciousness) involved in experiencing beginnings, in this particular universe which also had a beginning.

When our forms conk out, we leave them and experience the next phase and being released from the limitations of our human forms we regain some abilities which those forms suppressed us from being able to do.

From what I have gathered re data on this idea {afterlife}, is that in the next phase we are able to create our own realities, based largely upon our belief systems developed in this present universe.

In that we are, and have always been (in on form or another) eternal beings, and before any beginnings (worlds/universe) were created, we were altogether First Source undivided. Whole.

So, WE are essentially aspects of the consciousness of the entity who created this universe, itself perhaps an aspect of an entity who created the universe which allowed for the eventual creation of the current universe we are now experiencing, and this pattern recedes back all the way to the First Source who had no beginning.

It simply cannot recede back in an infinite regression of creators creating creators, because that is illogical.

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?

It is about an undivided chain of creativity going all the way to First Source.
Lets say for example that what I mentioned re black holes was an example of universes being created by no direct creator being.

They still have their beginning from a universe which was created, and even if this universe is also a product of some other universes black hole, rather than some purposeful being creating it, the connections are still there, in that some thing never comes from no thing thus eventually it can be traced back to some creator, even if that creator is the First Source and no other creators were created along the way to create other universes.

Defining characteristics re The First Source one can at least say that there is no end to ITs creativity.

Defining the characteristics of "uncaused" is simple enough. It is that which has always existed and had no beginning.

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?

I don't think it needs to be known for sure. All that needs to be acknowledged is that there must be a First Source.

If the assumed entity which created our particular universe is not the First Source, it is here nor there because it is still an aspect of FS, no matter how many times 'removed' from the FS it is. Just as we too are aspects of the FS, no matter how many times 'removed'.

In that, our acknowledgment is focused, not on entities which may or may not directly be FS. The focus is only on FS - on the logical conclusion that the entity who is FS, had no beginning.

If the claim from an entity is that [he] created this universe and everything in it, the claim can be acknowledge even if that entity is NOT The First Source.

If the claim from that entity is that [he] is the First Source - but [he] is not, then that entity is putting [his] self in the position of FS and we would have to come up with logical reasons for why that might be the case.

The most logical conclusion one can draw from such is that the entity understands [himself] to be - by proxy - a representative of FS and in that, 'no harm in doing so' - no particular 'foul' has been committed. So it all depends on the motives of such an entity as to whether any foul has been committed or not.

Add to that whatever it is that humans consign to the nature of that entity and if these things are questionable, then question them.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by William]

This doesn't matter. The point is that it is logical that whoever began to create originally, must have always existed and was not created.

Is that 'whoever' the same as 'whoever created our universe'? Didn't yourself give assent to the possibility of multiverses/other universes?

We can argue that this universe was not created directly by someone who was that being who always existed - it may have been created by a being who was also created, but that is not the point. Logic tells us that one cannot simply make the claim that this process therefore has to involve infinite regress. the buck has to stop somewhere, and thus it stops at a creator being who has never been created but has always existed.

And my contention is that (Christian) theists say that the buck stops with whoever created our universe, as if our universe is all that there is and ignoring whatsoever any possibility of a multiverse...as if by mere fact of being our universe's creator, that also translates to him being the uncaused cause.
I'm saying...not necessarily so, as in my computer programmer example.

There is no requirement to do so in relation to first cause - The First Source.

This doesn't answer my question, in fact, it only highlights the point I'm making. You've seemingly slapped the label of First Source, first cause, uncaused onto the creator of our universe, I'm asking you how you know that this creator deserves these adjectives, and your response seemingly boils down to..."Because he is".

As a visual representation ofthe idea;

I disagree with this image. It has your creator in two quote unquote places at once. Within/surrounded by the fractals that are worlds, and also around those worlds.

Who knows, but what we do know is that there is only 'in' and 'out' so in relation to black holes, what is going in doesn't appear to be coming back out anywhere.

I suggest you look up the term Hawking radiation.

We cannot ascertain that any creator of this particular universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless - we can only surmise what such a being might be, based upon observing the universe itself. Even so, that may only give us hints.

Then I suggest telling Dr. Craig this, as he has talked on some length about Kalam and seems pretty certain that Kalam does tell us that the uncaused cause has these traits, that this isn't a hint.

From what I have gathered re data on this idea {afterlife}, is that in the next phase we are able to create our own realities, based largely upon our belief systems developed in this present universe.

...huh? So if say I die while believing that I'm a Klingon and that the afterlife is like Sto'vo'kor, that is indeed what I will experience?


Far out...

It simply cannot recede back in an infinite regression of creators creating creators, because that is illogical.

I'm actually curious about this. Why exactly is that illogical? What if it actually IS turtles all the way down? I admit I don't like the idea of an infinite regression, but...what exactly makes it illogical?

Lets say for example that what I mentioned re black holes was an example of universes being created by no direct creator being.

They still have their beginning from a universe which was created, and even if this universe is also a product of some other universes black hole, rather than some purposeful being creating it, the connections are still there,

And so on and so on, potentially. I'm not seeing where there necessarily has to be a first one. A literal first one.

it can be traced back to some creator, even if that creator is the First Source and no other creators were created along the way to create other universes.

Can it? Can you actually trace back to a literal First creator, or only as far as a creator that you then dub the first creator?

Defining the characteristics of "uncaused" is simple enough. It is that which has always existed and had no beginning.

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but I can make up words too and give definitions for them. This doesn't then translate to them having any actual reality.
From what I can see, there doesn't automatically have to be an uncaused cause.

I don't think it needs to be known for sure. All that needs to be acknowledged is that there must be a First Source.

So let me get this straight. You believe that a being may or may not have created our universe. You acknowledge that our universe may have been created only indirectly, via a long (and in my estimation, potentially infinite) chain of generations (I'm going to use that word instead of creation, since creation implies a creator) of universes. So this would mean that this creator could potentially have quite literally the remotest connection with our universe.
When I ask you how you identify a creator along this chain as being the uncaused, first creator, you say you don't think it needs to be known for sure. Only that there is one.

This logic doesn't play out. What if say, one has a crime committed, a murder. How do you know that the person arrested by the police actually did commit it? To borrow your logic here...you don't need to know. Only acknowledge that there was a perpetrator.

In that, our acknowledgment is focused, not on entities which may or may not directly be FS. The focus is only on FS - on the logical conclusion that the entity who is FS, had no beginning.

And how is one supposed to be sure that when they focus on any particular creator entity, that that entity is indeed the FS?

If the claim from that entity is that [he] is the First Source - but [he] is not, then that entity is putting [his] self in the position of FS and we would have to come up with logical reasons for why that might be the case.

The most logical conclusion one can draw from such is that the entity understands [himself] to be - by proxy - a representative of FS and in that, 'no harm in doing so' - no particular 'foul' has been committed.

Really? So if I program a virtual reality, populated with aware entities and tell them I am literally the FS, there is none beyond me...I'm not lying? I'm not misrepresenting the truth, I'm not omitting the fact that there are other people in my own reality, and potentially other realities beyond my (and your) own?

[Defender of Truth]

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.

I'm going to respond for jgh7 and ask you why you think answers his questions?
His OP essentially asks what are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused, are they exclusive to God or a living self-aware entity and your response, when condensed as much as possible says essentially
"The definition of an uncaused being is a lack of beginning"

...which we all already know.

I'm late to the discussion, but I was simply pointing out that the topic is somewhat of a strawman since the major premise of the popular forms of the argument is not

everything in the universe that exists must have a cause

as the OP suggests but rather that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The minor premise would then be that the Universe began to exist.

The reason this is a notable distinction is because it shifts the question from "what are the characteristics of an uncaused being?" (a question irrelevant to the properly laid syllogism) to "what are the characteristics of the universe that requires a cause?"

Still a worthy question, but completely different from the OP since it's based off of a straw man of the Cosmological argument for God. I'll admit I've heard people use the OP's version of the argument before, but it's by far a weaker version and isn't historical or academic.

[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?

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.

Okay, lack of a beginning is a proposed characteristic. Is there any reason to say that this is solely exclusive to "beings" and not objects? What's to say that matter never had a beginning? I know the farthest we can trace things back is to the Big Bang. But what if that singularity of energy/matter/whatever it was before the great explosion had no beginning?

I'm going to respond for jgh7 and ask you why you think answers his questions?
His OP essentially asks what are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused, are they exclusive to God or a living self-aware entity and your response, when condensed as much as possible says essentially
"The definition of an uncaused being is a lack of beginning"

...which we all already know.

In catching up with this thread I saw this as well. It seems Riku you did have similar questions to what I asked above. As simple as Defender of Truth put it, I'm glad he put it that way. He proposed a basic characteristic that possibly we can all agree upon. We can maybe make progress from there building off of it to see what can and can't posess a "lack of beginning".

[wiploc]

Okay, lack of a beginning is a proposed characteristic.

My position is that, depending on how you define "beginning," either god and the rest of the universe both have beginnings, or neither have beginnings. There is no single definition of "beginning" that gives us a begun god and an unbegun rest of the universe.

The first cause argument, then, requires surreptitious two-stepping back and forth between incompatible meanings of the word "beginning."

Is there any reason to say that this is solely exclusive to "beings" and not objects?

For the purposes of this argument, I believe that anything which does be is a being. Anything which exists is a being.

What's to say that matter never had a beginning? I know the farthest we can trace things back is to the Big Bang. But what if that singularity of energy/matter/whatever it was before the great explosion had no beginning?

For one definition of "begin," something begins if, at T1 (time one) the thing does not exist, and then later, at T2, it does exist.

If we assume that neither energy nor time existed before the big bang, then there was no T1 at which energy did not exist. Thus, energy did not begin. This is the definition of "begin" that allows theists to claim their gods are unbegun--but it means that the rest of the universe is also unbegun.

[Complexity]

Let me add a few thoughts the discussion has triggered.

Gods Master Clock
An uncaused cause of our universe would be outside of our time streams. There are an infinite number of time streams all around us running in parallel; and before the Big Bang (assuming it happened) there was likely a timeless, spaceless somethingness; maybe some weird 15 dimension time stream running backwards or randomly jumping. We are so bounded by our time stream that we cant truly imagine a 15-dimension pre-time, a timeless time, or Gods clock. The God possibilities are:
1. God exists in at every instant in all time streams.
2. God hops from one instant in our time to another, at will, like having the ultimate time machine.
3. There is a supernatural, heavenly time stream. It is the standard by which, and within which all other time streams run.
4. God limits himself to some type of time and space, only on occasions like Jesus coming to earth, or God remaining completely outside of space and time.
5. Some other possibility beyond our understanding.
There is no hope well understand quantum mechanics or relativity in our lifetime. There is no hope well understand the paradoxes of infinite, a timeless time before our time (using before very loosely), or understand an uncaused cause beyond what information God reveals to us.


[u]Traits Common to Earth and Heaven (The links between the caused and the uncaused)[/u]
There could be only one reality or a million super-strange realities (multiple supernaturals). But we only have information about our natural universe and a heavenly reality God tells us about (per Christians, etc). Obviously the natural and supernatural wont share all traits, but we are told there are feature common to both.

Matt 22:29-30 Jesus replied, You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead they will be like the angels in heaven.

We dont know the power of God; nor the mysteries of heaven, beyond what we are told. After death well be like angels, but not equal to angels (apparently).

We are told man is made in the image of God. We can see that man and God both have existence, a home in heaven (for those who hope for and follow God), sentient minds, love-oneness, points of intersection into earthly life (revelations), etc. But we have good reason to believe there are great differences, and deep mysteries. We do need to be careful not to make the error of the Pharisees; assuming traits of this world are the same as the next. The Pharisees error is close to or equals the myth-makers error of fabricating fictional stories, idols, and then foolishly believing them.

The Ultimate Free Lunch (Something for Nothing)
Some claim that matter pops into existence, all the time, one elemental particle at a time. Some theories are:
1. The bubbling, rumblings of quantum probability fields, occasionally, at random, collapse into a brand new particle out of nothingness.
2. A particle and anti-particle pop into existence out of quantum chaos; and separate widely; so the sum is zero. It is like $1000 - $1000 = 0. But 0 was not divided into money and anti-money. We just moved money from my pocket to yours; from one place to another. The anti-particles we know are something and the coming together of matter and anti-matter produces energy, not nothingness.
3. Space-time branches off like a tree into different branch universes. And some branches return to the root and recycle space-time. If true the future turns into the past in the ultimate circle; ultimate perpetual motion machine.
The wild and wacky ideas abound. These are cute tricks. If there is a cosmic free lunch, we havent seen evidence of it yet. We cant merely wave our magic quantum mechanics wand like the charlatans did 200 years ago amazing crowds with electrostatics and sparks. Every theorist and his mother (hyperbole) has made a math model, each one producing different conclusions. They all can be shown to be consistent with quantum mechanics by performing simple math manipulations. The very few physicists who know the most about this, disagree greatly. But many of them become popular by presenting their theory with the high confidence of a shady used car salesman. Humility is as rare as hens teeth. Free-wheeling speculation, bias, and egos are as big as an elephants backside (Im not immune to this). I am in the sciences and seen this for 50 years. The fact is that we are at the point of understand quantum mechanics that Ben Franklin was understanding electricity when he flew his kite. In Bens day, there were numerous (wacko) theories about electrical phenomenon. They could not wrap their minds around lightening, electro-static sparks on a cold day, etc. Quantum mechanics understanding and harnessing it hasnt advanced much in 100 years. It may be 1000 years before we advance to the point of using quantum entanglement and non-locality like we use electricity to run lights and computers. Quantum phenomena are repeatable and orderly, thus part of the laws of nature, and thus understandable, eventually. Science has seen super-strange things in the quantum world, but never something popping out of nothing, without a cause. That is an Atheists dream. Lets keep our minds open but not empty our brains for some slick Youtube physicist with CGI.

Just because we humans are grossly ignorant, and mysteries abound, doesnt mean we should jump to the God-did-it solution. But neither should we dump God because we are dumb. There are good and great reasons to hope for a good God and follow Jesus.

[The Tanager]

[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.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but I do not think 100% certainty should be the standard. I think we should reason as best we can. What you said above was even reasoned to.

[The Tanager]

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

I'm not sure you understand the flow of the argument. You seem to think it goes something like this: (a) the universe has a cause, (b) the Christian posits it is their God and fabricates arguments to get desired characteristics. That is not how the argument goes.

It starts with (a) the universe has a cause, (b) the ultimate cause has to be uncaused because an infinite regress of past causes is logically impossible, (c) because this uncaused cause exists prior to the space-time universe (even if it isn't the most direct cause of our universe) we can see that this uncaused cause must also probably be immaterial, timeless, very powerful, personal, one and then (d) this entity sounds a lot like what classical theists have called God, (e) but it doesn't narrow this God's characteristics down further to judge between Christianity, Islam, etc. and for that we would need other arguments brought in.

(a) involves the Kalam proper, (b) is the argument against an infinite regress and isn't changed whether there is a multiverse, (c) involves other arguments, (d) involves an observational connection and (e) goes into other arguments. Philosophers like Craig don't just rattle off the characteristics of (c) and (e) in some flippant way; they give actual arguments that can be logically critiqued. Even the wikipedia article you linked to sketched the reasonings out. There is nothing deceptive about any of this. The arguments rise or fall like any argument, on their own merit, not the motives you think a proponent may have.

It seems to me that we should focus one step at a time, because they build on each other. Right now you seem to think premise 2 of the Kalam (step a) is false. If its alternative is more plausible than that premise, then the rest of where philosophers go in this won't matter.

The first step of the Kalam is this:

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

You believe the scientific law of the conservation of matter shows P2 to be false. It is my understanding that that law is something like this: in a closed system matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Is that your understanding? If not, why not?

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by rikuoamero]

And my contention is that (Christian) theists say that the buck stops with whoever created our universe, as if our universe is all that there is and ignoring whatsoever any possibility of a multiverse...as if by mere fact of being our universe's creator, that also translates to him being the uncaused cause.

That is part of what you are saying, yes. but that part is not relevant to me as I am not arguing that, nor am I a Christian.

I disagree with this image. It has your creator in two quote unquote places at once. Within/surrounded by the fractals that are worlds, and also around those worlds.

That you disagree with the image based on the observation that the creator is in two places at once disregards the nature of the mind as well as patterns.

To explain, my theology states that we are essentially aspects of First Source Consciousness, so we retain certain abilities related to that., even that these abilities are severely limited in relation to our particular position.

We know that we can be 'in two places at once' when we physically sit in a chair and imagine ourselves somewhere else.

In reality I am only in the one place as far as the observer could verify. I am sitting in a chair.

But to me, I may not be focused on being in a room sitting in a chair. I am focused upon being somewhere else and in that - enjoying the experience. I am in my mind experiencing what that is.

Now my position in regard to this ability is obviously near-infinitely less than First Source's. There is no reason for me to limit FS's ability to that of my own, but rather - as I am an aspect of FS consciousness, then there is no reason why I cannot acknowledge FS ability to do the same thing with Its own mind, on a near-infinitely greater scale and that is part of my theology.

To use the same imagery differently then ;



The use of a fractal as a means of trying to convey an idea is not without its merits because we understand fractals and patterns exist in the geometry of nature, and if nature is the result of a creative entity, then such patterns are very meaningful.

Literally what I am saying is that FS is enjoying the experience of Its own mind, and our universe and us within it are within the mind of FS.

The reason the mind of FS encompasses the reality of FS is because every thing which exists, does so within the mind of FS. FS is not separate in any way from Its mind. There is no differentiation.

I could add also that FS consciousness is not a 'thing' It just is. Things are created in the mind of FS and those things are experienced as being real. Only consciousness can experience. Only consciousness can say what is real.

That is also why my theology expresses that ALL consciousnesses in form are aspects of FSC.

In that, we are literally aspects of FSC experiencing 'things'.

Who knows, but what we do know is that there is only 'in' and 'out' so in relation to black holes, what is going in doesn't appear to be coming back out anywhere.

I suggest you look up the term Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation appears to be a remnant of what goes in. Are you suggesting it is the sum total of what goes in?

Then I suggest telling Dr. Craig this, as he has talked on some length about Kalam and seems pretty certain that Kalam does tell us that the uncaused cause has these traits, that this isn't a hint.

That doesn't matter. All I said was that by observing our universe we may get hints as to the nature of any entity creator most directly involved.
Can we detect anything about the universe which can confirm what Kalam claims about the attributes of the creator entity?

...huh? So if say I die while believing that I'm a Klingon and that the afterlife is like Sto'vo'kor, that is indeed what I will experience?

No - not likely. What we believe has much to do with our overall attitudes and underlying motives - some of which we are intimately aware of, some only vaguely and some we are not aware of at all but still are part of our overall individuate consciousness and associated beliefs. Consciousness is not just that which we are aware of about ourselves, but also that which we are not aware of about ourselves.

Altogether, that is what I am referring to which shapes the reality we will next experience.

I'm actually curious about this. Why exactly is that illogical? What if it actually IS turtles all the way down? I admit I don't like the idea of an infinite regression, but...what exactly makes it illogical?

What makes TATWD illogical is the more logical idea of that not being the case.

Of the two, which do you think is the more logical? [Occam's Razor.]

Can it? Can you actually trace back to a literal First creator, or only as far as a creator that you then dub the first creator?

"First Creator" as implied, has to include as part of the description, being the First. The starting point in this case. My theology allows for other creators as a natural extension.

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but I can make up words too and give definitions for them. This doesn't then translate to them having any actual reality.

'Reality' in what scientific method can measure and describe? Different subject. Theology is a subject of philosophy exploring the idea of GOD.

Science is a different discipline and it is best not to conflate the two, especially when arguing and generally, always.

From what I can see, there doesn't automatically have to be an uncaused cause.

Admittedly you cannot see a great deal if all you are relying on is what you can see.

That is just the way of science. Applicable philosophy and theology are different in that regard because these are not limited only to what the eye can see in nature, but nor do they ignore what is seen in nature.

So let me get this straight. You believe that a being may or may not have created our universe.

No. I acknowledge that our universe might be an indirect product of a created universe, if what I said about black holes is correct.

So let me get this straight. You believe that a being may or may not have created our universe. You acknowledge that our universe may have been created only indirectly, via a long (and in my estimation, potentially infinite) chain of generations (I'm going to use that word instead of creation, since creation implies a creator) of universes. So this would mean that this creator could potentially have quite literally the remotest connection with our universe.

There is no reason why you should have to come to that conclusion. Just because something is indirectly created from something that was directly created does not mean that the creator being would not be interested.

Also my theology has it that in order to create, the creator must invest Itself into that creation. That is why I used the fractal image to represent that idea.

Thus 'creators' are intimately involved in their creations through being the consciousness which experiences said creations. It follows the same pattern instigated by FSC. There is no deviation from that process. there is no 'other' consciousness.

When I ask you how you identify a creator along this chain as being the uncaused, first creator, you say you don't think it needs to be known for sure. Only that there is one.

True that. But I explained WHY as well. ALL consciousness represents FSC, regardless of what form it takes on or how that form limits its abilities.

This logic doesn't play out. What if say, one has a crime committed, a murder. How do you know that the person arrested by the police actually did commit it? To borrow your logic here...you don't need to know. Only acknowledge that there was a perpetrator.

I am unable to equate the act of creating this universe with that of the act of someone murdering someone and someone else being held responsible for that murder.

And how is one supposed to be sure that when they focus on any particular creator entity, that that entity is indeed the FS?

If you gave an example I could follow, I would be able to answer your question.

If the claim from that entity is that [he] is the First Source - but [he] is not, then that entity is putting [his] self in the position of FS and we would have to come up with logical reasons for why that might be the case.

The most logical conclusion one can draw from such is that the entity understands [himself] to be - by proxy - a representative of FS and in that, 'no harm in doing so' - no particular 'foul' has been committed.

Really? So if I program a virtual reality, populated with aware entities and tell them I am literally the FS, there is none beyond me...I'm not lying? I'm not misrepresenting the truth, I'm not omitting the fact that there are other people in my own reality, and potentially other realities beyond my (and your) own?

If you are aware that you are a representative of FS and in that no harm is being done by you - then what 'foul' has been committed by you in that?
Perhaps as an example, your VR populated by aware entities (which you regard as aspects of yourself re what I have been saying) and those self aware entities who manage to develop some kind of connection with you are still rather limited by their situation, why would you confuse them with details which are not necessarily productive to that?

Wouldn't you use more gradual method? What would it matter if you claimed that position knowing that they could learn the truth later on anyway, and even if they did, why would they hold such a thing against you? Unless of course your whole reason for doing so was to permanently keep them in the dark - so to speak - but you have given me no reason as to why you would want to do that, so until you do, I can presume that you don't.

So then, are you really lying to them or are you just using what you know to gently bring them into a fuller knowledge as each one of them moves closer to being able to incorporate that knowledge into their understanding without getting all wobbly wheeled on you?