God As Grounding Cause

[robvalue]

Oh god fucking causes again.

I am sure all these theists are just coming on here to get their heads around exactly the same argument they've been given.

It's a shame they don't believe in evolution

[SteveII]

I think you are wrong on this one (and I think we have been over this). We can infer several things from a first cause:

Changeless/timeless: two things, but they go together. To be in a timeless state, there can be no change. Since time itself came into existence at the first moments of the universe (or whatever predecessor you prefer), prior to that must be a timeless state.

I think you are wrong on this one...  
You see, ever since Einstein, we know that time and space are two aspects of the same thing, spacetime.
As far as I'm aware, nothing imposes spacetime coming "into existence at the first moments of the universe (or whatever predecessor you prefer)".

Immaterial: Since space came into existence at the first moments of the universe, the cause must not be made of at least the material in our universe. Material/physical object need space in which to exists and then you have the issue that if space exists, then time exists.

Again, space is an aspect of spacetime and we can't tell if it has just been there, or if it came into existence.
What we know is that it was compressed... very compressed... some 13.4 billion years ago, along with all energy and mass in the known Universe.

Personal: If the cause of the universe is timeless, then why is the universe only 14 billions years old? Why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to that is that the cause of the universe must be endowed with a freedom of the will. Only persons have a freedom to act separate from any prior conditions. Only free will could get an effect with a beginning from a cause that is permanent. 

Can you think of a cause that would avoid these conclusions?

Since your premises are potentially false, and spacetime could potentially be in existence beyond the start of our Universe, then yes, all your conclusions can be avoided.

Of course, you can argue one step further and say that spacetime, in the absence of the Universe, would also need to have a cause... The trouble with this is that I can say it doesn't need a cause and just is. And none of us would be able to adequately support any of our positions, given the outlandish non-intuitive nature of completely empty and potentially infinite spacetime.

Your points are in opposition to a first cause--not what I was addressing as to what properties can we infer from a first cause. These are two different things.

If I were to make arguments supporting a first cause, I would bring up the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and you have the logical impossibility of an actual infinite number of events in the past--to name the big ones.

---

Personal: If the cause of the universe is timeless, then why is the universe only 14 billions years old? Why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to that is that the cause of the universe must be endowed with a freedom of the will. Only persons have a freedom to act separate from any prior conditions. Only free will could get an effect with a beginning from a cause that is permanent. 

I've already pointed out to you why this is flawed once before.  Do you just keep repeating the same flawed arguments hoping that a new audience is unfamiliar with your past?

Refresh my memory...

[Angrboda]

I've already pointed out to you why this is flawed once before.  Do you just keep repeating the same flawed arguments hoping that a new audience is unfamiliar with your past?

Refresh my memory...

Here, with an added comment from Grandizer here.

[pocaracas]

Your points are in opposition to a first cause--not what I was addressing as to what properties can we infer from a first cause. These are two different things.

If I were to make arguments supporting a first cause, I would bring up the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and you have the logical impossibility of an actual infinite number of events in the past--to name the big ones.

Now tell me how the bare existence of spacetime implies an "infinite number of events in the past".
Do keep in mind that a photon feels no time going by as it travels through space... and other fields behave the same.

I feel like you're still intuitively separating space and time and thinking about matter and causality in spacetime.

[SteveII]

Refresh my memory...

Here, with an added comment from Grandizer here.

And I replied here

---

Your points are in opposition to a first cause--not what I was addressing as to what properties can we infer from a first cause. These are two different things.

If I were to make arguments supporting a first cause, I would bring up the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and you have the logical impossibility of an actual infinite number of events in the past--to name the big ones.

Now tell me how the bare existence of spacetime implies an "infinite number of events in the past".
Do keep in mind that a photon feels no time going by as it travels through space... and other fields behave the same.

I feel like you're still intuitively separating space and time and thinking about matter and causality in spacetime.

Are you saying there is a thing called spacetime that just sat changeless from the infinite past?

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks to me like you're going to have an infinite series of this same conversation, Steve.  Noting that observation....an infinite universe becomes all the more credible.  I bet, over the course of eternity...you've been doing this forever in all of your infinite instantiations.  

That's why I humor you, personally..I understand that it;s not your fault.  You;re just a product of your own infinite regress.

[ohreally]

The uncaused cause should be renamed the always causing cause because there can be a cause at any moment for no reason.    Maybe the whenever cause.  Doesn't have the same ring though.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you;re on to something..but maybe we could call it The Whatever Clause....since the first cause always ends up being the assertion that whatever is needed to rationalize the existence of a supreme grand wizard simply must be the case.

[RoadRunner79]

I;m not sure that a catholic really has room to criticize people on basic math, anyway.  Quick, what's 1+1+1?

Remember, if you don;t say 1...you're in mortal sin.

3

[The Grand Nudger]

Get thee to a priest!