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?
How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14176
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Post #81
[Replying to post 77 by Kenisaw]
Philosophy is handed the reigns in that department.
But even so, as you are aware, there are scientists who give it a go, and their theories re that, are no less philosophizing than any other. The idea of uncaused is something for the department of philosophy to ponde rupon.
The main point is that if this is the fate of the universe we are experiencing, it is not an eternal process and because it had a beginning, it cannot have created itself. Thus it cannot be understood to be 'uncaused'.
It is still a very reasonable conclusion to draw.Your last paragraph here makes no sense to me. The fact that the universe exists right now does not prove it is an effect from a previous cause.
No, but that is not the point.The fact that it had a beginning does not tell us anything about before the beginning.
This is not to assume that it is not a constant in regard to any conditions existing before the beginning of the universe.Cause and effect is an arrow of time phenomena.
All you are speaking to is what is observed within the universe. Processes which require an initial event and a final state. As I said, we cannot just assume this is only the case in regard to this universe. The initial event was the BB and the final state appears to be an incalculably immense and inert object in which there are no other objects...and all energy is finally spent...or at least has become inert and is simply a potential which has no way in which to be realized. ie - cannot become anything else.It is clearly shown via the process of entropy.
Of course it is logical. It is far more logical than assuming it was uncaused.To extrapolate those characteristics of this current universe to the point before this universe is not logical.
We do have clues, just in observing cause and affect from within it. Just because we have nothing to measure outside of it does not mean that we have to assume there is no outside of it and are no similar type rules involved in the process before the BB.We haven't the first clue what rules were in place, what the state of things were, and how the universe came to be (or if there even was anything in the first place).
How does that statement fit in with the claim that energy is not lost, but only transformed? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Where in that is this 'energy penalty' ? What are you meaning by that?If there was no entropy then things could move back and forth between states with no energy penalty.
Scientists cannot say because there is no way in which science can be applied in that regard.We cannot say that a universe that had a beginning had to have a cause, because we have no idea what the conditions were that led up to the universe beginning.
Philosophy is handed the reigns in that department.
But even so, as you are aware, there are scientists who give it a go, and their theories re that, are no less philosophizing than any other. The idea of uncaused is something for the department of philosophy to ponde rupon.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #82
[Replying to post 80 by For_The_Kingdom]
What we have here is a clash between religion and science.
Religion cannot survive the application of science beyond the 19th century.
As you are demonstrating by taking religious based scientific arguments from before man knew better, and applying them to modern physics.
You can use a term like "uncaused," and say it is quantified, but it is really simple jargon used to conjure the imaginary into being.
What we have here is a clash between religion and science.
Religion cannot survive the application of science beyond the 19th century.
As you are demonstrating by taking religious based scientific arguments from before man knew better, and applying them to modern physics.
You can use a term like "uncaused," and say it is quantified, but it is really simple jargon used to conjure the imaginary into being.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14176
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Post #83
[Replying to post 82 by Willum]
This is not to say that this being the case, it goes to prove that what different religions/theologies assign to that entity is truthful and accurate.
That is a whole other story.
I think the word is adequate to describe an Entity Creator who had no beginning. Whether the entity exists or not is always the argument, although it is a speculative expression of claim that the Entity is 'imaginary'. It may actually exist indeed - and logically It does.You can use a term like "uncaused," and say it is quantified, but it is really simple jargon used to conjure the imaginary into being.
This is not to say that this being the case, it goes to prove that what different religions/theologies assign to that entity is truthful and accurate.
That is a whole other story.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #84
[Replying to post 83 by William]
You say it logically does, but according my understanding of the natural world, I see no need for a creator entity of any sort.
From what I see these days, a creator is just left-overs from when man couldn't understand lightning, much less understand evolution or cosmology, and mixed them both up.
Which is a common complaint.
So, you say a creator is a logical necessity? Show me one thing that is better explained with an uncaused creator than without.
You say it logically does, but according my understanding of the natural world, I see no need for a creator entity of any sort.
From what I see these days, a creator is just left-overs from when man couldn't understand lightning, much less understand evolution or cosmology, and mixed them both up.
Which is a common complaint.
So, you say a creator is a logical necessity? Show me one thing that is better explained with an uncaused creator than without.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14176
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Post #85
[Replying to post 84 by Willum]
Logic insists it has to be the case, as has been pointed out, throughout this and many other threads.
This would be incorrect because if the caused were not created then the uncaused would still exist. It just wouldn't be a 'creator' It exists anyway, whether it creates or not, but as we can ascertain, It creates, and through that it can even create creators who create because that is the pattern we observe in this universe.
There is no way in which to tell if whomever created this universe was not itself created. This does not imply therefore that the notion of infinite regress has to come into play.
The logical reasoning would have to be that before any creation began to take place, The First Source creator had to exist and had to have always existed (was not created.)
In that, the potential for all things created had to also exist within the mind of that entity.
The 'created creators' are aspects of the uncaused consciousness as there is no consciousness outside of the uncaused. There is no 'outside' of the uncaused. because all that is created, exists within the mind of the uncaused creator.
Your needs are besides the point.You say it logically does, but according my understanding of the natural world, I see no need for a creator entity of any sort.
Logic insists it has to be the case, as has been pointed out, throughout this and many other threads.
One might argue that using the single paradigm of "Caused/Uncaused," is circular reasoning when used to prove a creator on the grounds that a creator needs to be uncaused, but uncaused needs to exist for there to be a creator.So, you say a creator is a logical necessity? Show me one thing that is better explained with an uncaused creator than without.
This would be incorrect because if the caused were not created then the uncaused would still exist. It just wouldn't be a 'creator' It exists anyway, whether it creates or not, but as we can ascertain, It creates, and through that it can even create creators who create because that is the pattern we observe in this universe.
There is no way in which to tell if whomever created this universe was not itself created. This does not imply therefore that the notion of infinite regress has to come into play.
The logical reasoning would have to be that before any creation began to take place, The First Source creator had to exist and had to have always existed (was not created.)
In that, the potential for all things created had to also exist within the mind of that entity.
The 'created creators' are aspects of the uncaused consciousness as there is no consciousness outside of the uncaused. There is no 'outside' of the uncaused. because all that is created, exists within the mind of the uncaused creator.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #86
[Replying to post 85 by William]
Yeah, the “what created the creator� nonsense is obviated when you don’t need a creator. How simple is that?
If, to beat an example you don’t seem to be reading, to death, if all the atoms of hydrogen, >90%of the universe, mind, are unchanged and unchanging, and have no need for creation, then what logic do you need to say they were created?
None.
Bottom line, a creator does not explain anything that can’t more logically be explained without.
Yeah, the “what created the creator� nonsense is obviated when you don’t need a creator. How simple is that?
If, to beat an example you don’t seem to be reading, to death, if all the atoms of hydrogen, >90%of the universe, mind, are unchanged and unchanging, and have no need for creation, then what logic do you need to say they were created?
None.
Bottom line, a creator does not explain anything that can’t more logically be explained without.
Re: How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"
Post #87RESPONSE:jgh7 wrote: 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?
Definition: "uncaused "- not to have a cause that brought it into existence. That should be obvious form the word itself
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #88
Kenisaw wrote (Post 74)
Philosophy used to be the highly respectable field of study of all truth; how we know anything; and how to critically think. Modern man put up artificial walls of division, and generally downgraded philosophy to idea of silly men searching for a black cat in a dark room, that never was there. My college philosophy course was an utter joke because the professor I had was a fool. I had a professor tell me he chose that profession because it is easy money; minimal work, and summers off. But find a good teacher and you've hit gold. Good philosophy is in full harmony with good science. There is a critical lack of critical thinking in the world. Proper philosophy (logical-driven, humble, fair) and traditional values certainly could not hurt the situation.It is a great mistake to think that truth can be obtained thru purely philosophical musings. One can only assume that their premises are accurate, because there is often no way to verify that accuracy. Of course one could state premises that are scientifically accurate and validated, but then that isn't purely philosophical...is it.
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #89
Willum Wrote:
Ancient man was mesmerized by the regularity of the sun coming up every day, but shifting with the seasons. Like magic the sun went low during winter and high and long during summer. It controlled the temperature and crops. This same type of regularity is found today in the regularity conservation of matter.
The conservation of matter is an extremely powerful law, but that doesn’t mean it is all-powerful. We are discussing the eternity of matter rather it is 100%, 90%, or 1% of matter we see. Where did that which is conserved come from? Atheist expect and look for gaps in the law, where matter could be created from nothing or recycled endlessly. God believers expect there was a gigantic gap at the beginning, which matter and laws didn’t exist. Before the BB there was no matter to conserve. I stand in awe of the natural order, and I love it. But I don’t worship it. The Conservation of Matter certainly deserves the status of man’s default principle for current operations, but there is no need to exaggerate that, balloon it into an eternal, divine status. The Conservation of Matter could very well have small gaps (undetectable rare creation events of particles), interference from other realms (miracles), and/or a beginning. Those who believe in Big Bang’s best models believe at the beginning of our universe there was no space or time. Thus, there was no stage upon which matter could exist, at the point of beginning or “before.� Matter/Energy either came from another place & time or was created purely out of nothing by some unknown mechanism.
We all follow the Conservation of Matter “religiously.� We believe in it by the multi-numerous observations; high volume induction. But inductive logic is never 100% certain. If every swan we see is white, that doesn’t ensure that all swans are white. All we see might not be all there is, because we don’t see it all. We can’t track every particle of matter and energy and their transformations, even at present, much less into the past or future.
There are good reasons to believe that the Conservation of Matter is not 100% functional (gapless; in force), for all times, in every realm and every time stream. There is good reason for strong skepticism on this point. There is a divine foot in the door. The reasons are:
1. We don’t know the origins or destiny of the Conservation of Matter. We don’t know how it is maintained or if it is maintained 100%.
2. There is super-strangeness at our origins, no matter what theory you believe has most merit. There had to be unknown, unimaginable mechanisms in play, different from current mechanisms. Thus it is likely the laws of nature were different. We can’t be sure if Entropy was in force, with things proceeding towards lowest energy and disorder.
3. There is super-strangeness in the here and now. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, possibility of multiple-space dimensions is enough for doubt, but may be just the beginning.
4. The investigations of philosophy indicate many points of super-strangeness. For example; our universe can’t have an eternal past or we would never have arrived at our point in time. Logic demands that no point in any time stream could have an infinite past. There can’t be an infinite regress, as there can’t be anything real that is infinite.
5. There is nothing within the natural realm that rules out any of the theories of origin, including God. The God/supercontroller question rests upon the hard evidences (lab tests, witnesses, prophecy fulfillment); correlations/causations (consistency, regularity, fit of the parts, extrapolations, fit of alternative theories, explanatory powers); and non-evidence rational reasons (goodness & potential goodness, greatest hope, intuition, pragmatic power, alternative virtues, etc).
In spite of the man’s multiple level of ignorance, we have good reasons to believe and assume the following:
1. Logic reigns. Order is the foundation for the laws of nature. The natural and supernatural don’t appear to have an irrational bone in their body.
2. There is some ultimate cause far greater than and superseding the laws of nature we know.
3. This greater cause is uncaused or it couldn’t have first-cause capability or avoid the infinite regress problem (paradox).
The Not-So Divine Conservation of MatterIf, to beat an example you don’t seem to be reading, to death, if all the atoms of hydrogen, >90%of the universe, mind, are unchanged and unchanging, and have no need for creation, then what logic do you need to say they were created?
None.
Bottom line, a creator does not explain anything that can’t more logically be explained without.
Ancient man was mesmerized by the regularity of the sun coming up every day, but shifting with the seasons. Like magic the sun went low during winter and high and long during summer. It controlled the temperature and crops. This same type of regularity is found today in the regularity conservation of matter.
The conservation of matter is an extremely powerful law, but that doesn’t mean it is all-powerful. We are discussing the eternity of matter rather it is 100%, 90%, or 1% of matter we see. Where did that which is conserved come from? Atheist expect and look for gaps in the law, where matter could be created from nothing or recycled endlessly. God believers expect there was a gigantic gap at the beginning, which matter and laws didn’t exist. Before the BB there was no matter to conserve. I stand in awe of the natural order, and I love it. But I don’t worship it. The Conservation of Matter certainly deserves the status of man’s default principle for current operations, but there is no need to exaggerate that, balloon it into an eternal, divine status. The Conservation of Matter could very well have small gaps (undetectable rare creation events of particles), interference from other realms (miracles), and/or a beginning. Those who believe in Big Bang’s best models believe at the beginning of our universe there was no space or time. Thus, there was no stage upon which matter could exist, at the point of beginning or “before.� Matter/Energy either came from another place & time or was created purely out of nothing by some unknown mechanism.
We all follow the Conservation of Matter “religiously.� We believe in it by the multi-numerous observations; high volume induction. But inductive logic is never 100% certain. If every swan we see is white, that doesn’t ensure that all swans are white. All we see might not be all there is, because we don’t see it all. We can’t track every particle of matter and energy and their transformations, even at present, much less into the past or future.
There are good reasons to believe that the Conservation of Matter is not 100% functional (gapless; in force), for all times, in every realm and every time stream. There is good reason for strong skepticism on this point. There is a divine foot in the door. The reasons are:
1. We don’t know the origins or destiny of the Conservation of Matter. We don’t know how it is maintained or if it is maintained 100%.
2. There is super-strangeness at our origins, no matter what theory you believe has most merit. There had to be unknown, unimaginable mechanisms in play, different from current mechanisms. Thus it is likely the laws of nature were different. We can’t be sure if Entropy was in force, with things proceeding towards lowest energy and disorder.
3. There is super-strangeness in the here and now. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, possibility of multiple-space dimensions is enough for doubt, but may be just the beginning.
4. The investigations of philosophy indicate many points of super-strangeness. For example; our universe can’t have an eternal past or we would never have arrived at our point in time. Logic demands that no point in any time stream could have an infinite past. There can’t be an infinite regress, as there can’t be anything real that is infinite.
5. There is nothing within the natural realm that rules out any of the theories of origin, including God. The God/supercontroller question rests upon the hard evidences (lab tests, witnesses, prophecy fulfillment); correlations/causations (consistency, regularity, fit of the parts, extrapolations, fit of alternative theories, explanatory powers); and non-evidence rational reasons (goodness & potential goodness, greatest hope, intuition, pragmatic power, alternative virtues, etc).
In spite of the man’s multiple level of ignorance, we have good reasons to believe and assume the following:
1. Logic reigns. Order is the foundation for the laws of nature. The natural and supernatural don’t appear to have an irrational bone in their body.
2. There is some ultimate cause far greater than and superseding the laws of nature we know.
3. This greater cause is uncaused or it couldn’t have first-cause capability or avoid the infinite regress problem (paradox).
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #90
[Replying to post 89 by Complexity]
Hi Complexity.
You are making it unnecessarily complex.
Now that you mention it: Conservation of mass is all powerful, and obviously so.
Perhaps that will help. Time can end without God, and without a causal agent, why a beginning?
The point is It did not need to come from anywhere. At any given time an atom is identical to any other time. Since this is true, it does not age, and therefor needs no cause.
Hi Complexity.
You are making it unnecessarily complex.
Now that you mention it: Conservation of mass is all powerful, and obviously so.
OK, those gaps are not important to the discussion, and are illogical to assume.The Conservation of Matter could very well have small gaps (undetectable rare creation events of particles)
Again, to understand, just focus on a single atom of hydrogen. It can become a gas H2, it can become water H2O, it can become sugar in a plant C12H22O11, this becomes a carbohydrate or DNA, and thus a living creature, all without every changing itself, and unlikely to change until time ends.Where did that which is conserved come from?
Perhaps that will help. Time can end without God, and without a causal agent, why a beginning?
The point is It did not need to come from anywhere. At any given time an atom is identical to any other time. Since this is true, it does not age, and therefor needs no cause.
