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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

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

[JehovahsWitness]

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only?

According to Steven Hawkins "We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in" - Curiosity, The Discovery Channel. Hawkins calls that something" singularity; Theists call it "god".

A rose by any other name...

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused?

Not having or needing a cause.

Are these characteristics exclusive to God only?

No, it would be a characteristic to anything that exists that doesn't have a cause

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

So a simple atom of hydrogen has no time, it does not change, and has not ever have been anything else. It is "uncaused."
Arguably more so than a singularity, since it cannot be shown every atom was part of the singularity.
Is it proof of God, or proof of conservation of matter/energy?

Like everything else, it only changes when acted upon.
Again, "uncaused" is a false assumption based on things like birth and growing, and ignorance in believing that embryos are analogous to planets and elementary particles.

A philosophy kept alive by religion, and dead to most since Mikhail Lomonosov in 1756.

[Realworldjack]

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?

In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause,

Who exactly is, "THEY?" I thought that cause, and effect was scientifically proven? Am I wrong? Is there some sort of effect, that does not have a cause?

and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God.

Okay, would the original uncaused entity, be the universe itself? In other words, there seems to have to be something along the line that must be, uncaused. Would this be the universe itself?

They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.

I am not familiar with these arguments.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused?

I would have no idea? So, what would be the characteristics necessary, which would allow the universe, to be uncaused?

Are these characteristics exclusive to God only?

I have no idea? Maybe, we have a universe which has no cause, and it is the universe these characteristics are exclusive to?

Are they exclusive to the Christian God only?

I really do not believe this would be the point. In other words, those that make this argument, are not insisting that this, uncaused cause, must and has to be the God of the Bible. Rather, they are simply attempting to demonstrate that there must be a first uncaused, cause, but this would in no way demonstrate what, are who this cause may be.

It would be after this point was made that they could then go on to attempt to demonstrate how this uncaused cause, would be the God of the Bible.

[William]

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 you are speaking about is the idea of infinite regression or 'turtles all the way down' which is to say, the argument that if everything requires a cause, then who created GOD and then who created that GOD which created our GOD and who created the GOD the created the GOD that created our GOD ad infinitum.

In purely logical terms, a First Source entity creator of all that is has to exist, but does not have to have any creator IF the FS has always existed.

FS existing as an eternal being would be a state of natural attribute rather than as a somehow deserved one which needs qualifying.
This is not to say that 'GODs' have not been created in relation to this, because essentially everything comes from the First Source so that which has a beginning is an aspect of the First Source Consciousness, the only difference being that these aspect of FSC all would experience having a beginning.

Essentially beginnings require some type of form, and a particular type of form which can block off any prior memory of having existed (because we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness) I suspect that this universe is one such form, and these ideas altogether are part of my overall theology.

What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused?

None. It is a matter of being the Being who creates everything from that point.

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?

It is not a characteristic. Imagine yourself in that position, always ever having been - you had no beginning. Would you think of that as something of a characteristic you developed or grew into?

I would say that you would not think of it at all. I would say what you would think of would be what it would be like to experience a beginning.

Hence, you would create ways in which do do this.

[The Tanager]

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?

You could be talking about different arguments, but one possibility is the Kalam cosmological argument. There the premise argued for is not "everything that exists has a cause," but "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Scientific and/or philosophical arguments are then given to argue that the universe began to exist (i.e., is not eternal), leading to the conclusion that the universe had a cause. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist must itself either have begun to exist (and if so, need a cause for its beginning to exist) or be uncaused (i.e., eternal). To avoid the infinite regress (which is argued to be logically impossible) something has to be uncaused/eternal. God is not the only candidate at this point in the analysis. But philosophers will then try to see what else we can know about this cause which will include additional characteristics like being personal, non-temporal, immaterial, omnipotent, etc. which seems to many philosophers to be describing what classical theism says is true of God and not other candidates. Further argument would be needed to narrow it down to the Christian God if one was so inclined to do that.

[wiploc]

You could be talking about different arguments, but one possibility is the Kalam cosmological argument. There the premise argued for is not "everything that exists has a cause," but "everything that begins to exist has a cause."

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."

Scientific and/or philosophical arguments are then given to argue that the universe began to exist (i.e., is not eternal), leading to the conclusion that the universe had a cause. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist must itself either have begun to exist (and if so, need a cause for its beginning to exist) or be uncaused (i.e., eternal). To avoid the infinite regress (which is argued to be logically impossible) something has to be uncaused/eternal.

How would that avoid the infinite regress? An eternal god is an infinite regress in itself.

[The Tanager]

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."

It actually comes from analyzing logic, our common experiences and intuitions. Things can either (a) have always existed (i.e., be eternal) or (b) they begin to exist at some time. Those are the only two logical options.

(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.

(b) 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. Nothing has ever just popped into existence from nothing uncaused. The notion itself is even more magical than the 'magic' of religion that atheists will talk about ("creation ex nihilo"), because it has no 'magician' at all doing the 'magic.' So, I think this premise is much more plausible than its alternative and not at all arbitrary.

How would that avoid the infinite regress? An eternal god is an infinite regress in itself.

The infinite regress is asking the question "what is it's cause" ad infinitum. 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. Why would this uncaused cause being god change that and now need to be asked "but, what is it's cause?"

[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."

It actually comes from analyzing logic, our common experiences and intuitions. Things can either (a) have always existed (i.e., be eternal) or (b) they begin to exist at some time. Those are the only two logical options.

Everything is either blue or not blue.

(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.

(b) 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. Nothing has ever just popped into existence from nothing uncaused.

Quantum mechanics begs to differ.

The notion itself is even more magical than the 'magic' of religion that atheists will talk about ("creation ex nihilo"), because it has no 'magician' at all doing the 'magic.' So, I think this premise is much more plausible than its alternative and not at all arbitrary.

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.

Logically, everything is either (a) a flying wombat, or (b) not a flying wombat. Everything we've experienced is not a flying wombat, and everything we've experienced was caused. But, since we've never experienced flying wombats, there is no reason to assume that those would be caused. Since everything else is caused, it stands to reason that flying wombats, the uncaused first causes, created the rest of the universe.

It's an absolutely arbitrary argument. If you liked wombats more than your religion, you might find this version of the argument compelling, but people who like theism more than wombats prefer to conclude that gods caused the rest of the universe.

The two arguments are equally strong. The only reason for picking one and deciding that it is more plausible than the other is if you happen to like the conclusion of that argument.

Arbitrary and self serving.

How would that avoid the infinite regress? An eternal god is an infinite regress in itself.

The infinite regress is asking the question "what is it's cause" ad infinitum. 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. Why would this uncaused cause being god change that and now need to be asked "but, what is it's cause?"

The argument that my flying wombats are uncaused is exactly as strong as your argument that your gods are uncaused. But my wombats aren't eternal, they don't exist back into the past forever and without end. Thus, they avoid the problem of infinite regress.

Your gods, on the other hand, are eternal. They stretch back forever, unbegun. They are the epitome of infinite regress.