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?

[William]

[Replying to post 60 by wiploc]

So everything is either part of an infinite regress, or else it is created by something that is itself part of an infinite regress. Do I have that right?

No.

Infinite regress is something made up to argue that if we had a creator, then who created the creator that created us and who created that creator etc ad infinitum.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 53 by William]

Theories of the eventual demise of the universe state mass and energy will be conservered. That is one of the underlying principles of these theories...



[Replying to post 54 by The Tanager]

OK, that's not exactly what I said, is it? Or even close?
Speaking about a single atom of hydrogen, I stated that, unless acted on, it is eternal.
Even if acted on, it is only transformed into other elements.

But I agree with your number two as well, the problem is, you seem to be conflating the two, and setting them up as a false dichotomy.

But you are learning, and that is impressive.

[Complexity]

Willum wrote

Sorry, I thought I read you studied physics. So, none of those really weird alternatives you mention are germane.

I might be running off on a tangent here, but what else is new. I think you are saying that science applies only to the natural realm. I’ve debated this point in other venues. There is no law of the universe that limits science (or rational inquiry) to only what we can see, touch with current tools, an subject to repeatible public-access testing. Wikipedia says science =

systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

If we all decide that science only deals with things in our visible universe; fine. I’ll go along with whatever definition the masses decree. But then we’d need a name for the rational investigation of potential other universes and realms. Call it super-science, or whatever. If a god is involved we’d call it theology apollogetics.

When I run tests in the lab and find odd results, I have never suspected ghosts or gods were interfering (playing games with me, like an ant in an ant-farm). When we talk about origins, every explanation is super-strange. It would be an intellectual error to leave out any possibility just because it felt more strange than the others, or because it doesn't have direct testibility. The thought that microscopic living organisms live inside of us was once considered too strange to consider; which slowed down medical advancement. When I was young the idea of multiple-universes was laughed at, but now it is a part of serious science investigation.

Science (hard reason and testing) can and has been applied to Biblical history, artifacts, consistency of belief systems, evolution, intelligent design, etc. The philosopher’s tools of logic/reason should be applied to every search for truth; natural or supernatural. We should use every tool in our toolbox to investigate the potentially most important issue ever. There is only an artificial wall put up, by some on both camps, between science and faith (the supernatural possibility). It bothers some Atheists that they don't have direct, daily access to heaven, and can't take scales to heaven to weigh spirits. But how could it be any other way, if an uncaused first cause created a natural realm very different from the supernatural, made connections, gave revelations, but had reasons to not reveal all, not to fly across the sky every morning in a flaming chariot. Good reasons include the preservation of free will, making earth a spiritual bootcamp of education, and man's inability to understand.

[The Tanager]

But I agree with your number two as well, the problem is, you seem to be conflating the two, and setting them up as a false dichotomy.

But you are learning, and that is impressive.

I don't understand how you can conflate two definitions and set them up as a false dichotomy. To conflate means to bring together or combine into a composite whole and a dichotomy is dividing them as mutually exclusive. Those are opposite concepts.

Only one of the two options I gave can be what the law of conservation of energy says. And it is the second one. Whether our universe is a closed system, and therefore under the law of conservation of energy, is a second question. The law can apply to the universe, but the law itself doesn't address whether it does in its definition. And then there is a third question as to the origin of such a system (eternal or began to exist at some point).

I think you are conflating these three questions all together in acting like the law of conservation of energy proves the matter of our universe is eternal. It may be that the matter of our universe is eternal, but it isn't just because of the law of conservation of energy, because the definition of that law (and rightly so) doesn't address that question.

Bringing this back to the Kalam, you actually seem to agree with it that this form of the universe has not always been this way. The kalam says this means it had a cause of some sort, but you don't like that language and simply say it underwent transformation. So, I've tried to come at the same issue without the language of cause. The next question is to look at what we can now about what went on prior to the transformation. This is why I asked you (and do so again) if you believed space-time came into existence.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

*Their sound, valid, and necessarily true arguments.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused?

Timelessness <--if this can be considered a characteristic.

Are these characteristics exclusive to God only?

Yes.

Are they exclusive to the Christian God only?

If the Resurrection of Jesus argument is true, yes.

Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?

Whatever the entity is...is...God.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 60 by wiploc]

So everything is either part of an infinite regress, or else it is created by something that is itself part of an infinite regress. Do I have that right?

No.

Help me out then, because I'm confused. You said that the universe "either has to have always been, or it was created."

1. I assumed, with some trepidation, that "to have always been" refers to infinite regress as opposed to, say, last Thursdayism. Did I get that much right?

2. Are we talking exclusively about the universe, or does the same logic apply to parts of the universe, like hamburgers and gods?

Infinite regress is something made up to argue that if we had a creator, then who created the creator that created us and who created that creator etc ad infinitum.

That's silly. The first cause argument uses the specter of infinite regress as a reason to believe in an uncaused first cause. It (infinite regress) wasn't created by opponents of the first cause argument; it's an inherent part of the first cause argument.

You may not like it when people use your own logic against you, but that's not the same as those people inventing that logic.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 64 by The Tanager]

So, TT, maybe I've been a little pugnacious, but I must admit I like that you are thinking about it.
It is seriously admirable.

So, please allow me to elaborate a little more.
If we consider, only for the sake of simplification, for the moment, a single atom of hydrogen:
It will not change unless acted upon, it is the same now as it has been since the Big Bang.

If we "reverse" the Big Bang, we would find that under denser and denser states that atom would transform to other states, but remain an atom, or collection of atoms, due to density.

Now, a single atom could be considered a "closed," system, but I think that would simply be confusing.
But considering the entire universe at once is unlikely to help anyone either.

So, consider every atom of hydrogen in the universe, only for simplification as well. All of these are unchanged since the beginning, and would have been transformed before that.

We can conjecture before that easily, mass is conserved. There is no reason to assume that the BB created mass, or the any number of things that could have happened before the BB created mass either.

The bottom line being, everything either is, or is made up of hydrogen (elements). They are eternal, immortal, or whatever literary description you wish to give them. There is no reason for anyone to suspect a cause, except to justify a God, which is basically, a circular argument, as God is needed to create everything... and so on.

Peace?

[William]

[Replying to post 66 by wiploc]

1. I assumed, with some trepidation, that "to have always been" refers to infinite regress as opposed to, say, last Thursdayism. Did I get that much right?

No.

The problem with the idea that the universe has always been is the big bang itself, because that event signifies a beginning.
Something that has always existed cannot have a beginning, and the evidence of the BB shows a definite beginning.
Couple that with the various theories of the eventual demise of the universe and therein we have an ending. Something with an ending does not dovetail with the idea of uncasued, as per the idea of a Creator who never had a beginning (was not caused by anything else) and will never have an end - an idea which in itself does away with the infinite regress argument, as far as I can tell.

2. Are we talking exclusively about the universe, or does the same logic apply to parts of the universe, like hamburgers and gods?

Your question there is a contradiction in terms. 'The universe' is not 'the universe' without all of its 'parts'.

That's silly. The first cause argument uses the specter of infinite regress as a reason to believe in an uncaused first cause. It (infinite regress) wasn't created by opponents of the first cause argument; it's an inherent part of the first cause argument.

It is all very well stating as much, but without accompanying examples, the statement is empty for that.

'First cause' derives from the uncaused. It is not uncaused, because it is caused, even if it is the first cause in a chain of events.

You appear to be conflating the idea of the uncaused with the idea of first caused.

In doing so you effectively open the door up to the notion of infinite regress, but the notion itself is remiss because of the conflation.

You may not like it when people use your own logic against you, but that's not the same as those people inventing that logic.

I am not the one conflating, You are.

[For_The_Kingdom]

"Uncaused" is an unnatural and unnecessary concept, dispelled by an educated understanding of the "conservation of matter and energy." Since nothing is ever created,only transformed, there is not need for a first cause.

False. Again, the laws of nature (specifically, the first law of thermodynamics) came into being only after the universe began to exist. The fact that the universe began to exist is not up for debate in academic circles..and if the universe began to exist, then of course, an external cause is required.

No way out of it.

Even the Big Bang isn't a 'creation' of matter or energy, only a transformation from a dense state to like things are now.

Ok again; the question would now be why did the universe "transform" from this dense state only 13.7 billion years ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later? If the conditions for this "transformation" existed since past eternity, then it could not have possibly transformed only a finite time ago.

Again, this is a philosophical problem, and no amount of science can help you here...so appealing to it is a waste. You can fight it all you want, but the fact still remains.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 67 by Willum]

So, consider every atom of hydrogen in the universe, only for simplification as well. All of these are unchanged since the beginning, and would have been transformed before that.

I definitely don't look at this as being in a fight against you. My main point has been to seek an understanding of what the Kalam actually argues and how it goes about it, moreso than whether it is correct or not because I feel like you and others misunderstand the flow of the argument.

I'm trying to grasp your point, so correct my misunderstandings. You seem to be saying that the mass of atoms has remained constant prior to, during and after the Big Bang. You seem to also think that atoms were in a different state prior to the Big Bang, then after the Big Bang. Do I understand you correctly there?