Creationism

[Deesse23]

Firstoff: could the first cause aka "existence" be a pink unicorn? If so, what is not serious about my question? Why object to my wordplay after Aquinas wordplay? Because it sound less intellectual? If you dont like my description of "existence" as a "pink unicorn", please provide your own, more to the point description or definition of "existence".

If by "pink unicorn" you have in mind that which we imagine to be a "pink unicorn" then that can't be semantically equivalent to "first cause" as is traditionally understood.

Why not?

What i have in mind with *pink unicorn* is something that caused existence. Logically of course, not in a time related fashion, of course. Its property is a kind of "proto existence", not existence per se, some *pre-existence*  (or pre existing if you will   ) condition. The pink unicorn is proto-existence.

For your last sentence, I don't know how to answer that other than what was already said. Maybe your point is that this can't but be abstract, but for Aquinas, "Existence" is "something" and not a mere abstract notion.

Im not making claims about what existence is, Aquinas does. I am only interested if Aquinas idea is true or even possibly true as a coherent concept. I certainly do not accept his assertion "its a thing!" on the face of it.

If existence is a "something" and not some abstract notion. Can that "thing" exist in an environment without time ("to exist", pun intended...to a certain degree) or space to inhabit? If it can, particularly without the necessity of space or time, what is this thing called existence exactly? Can you give a detailed definition of it (since i do not yet know of things that can ...exist....without time and/or space)? How can it be more than a property all things have? Can existence exist without a thing that has existence as a property?

If existence was the first thing to exist (aka. first cause), what were its properties? Existence? Seems so, as there was nothing else (than this first cause called *existence*). Did it have itself as a property? Is that even possible? If existence is the property of the *thing* existence, then....*trying to wrap my head around this)* arent we talking of two different things? If they are. Then we have two first causes, not one: the thing existence, and the property existence. Or if its the same thing, how can a thing be a thing and a property?

Whatever, "existence is the first cause", in a nutshell, correct? Existence causes everything else, not in a temporal matter, but in a logical matter, correct*?

For Aquinas, yes, basically.

Lets go back to the time when there was only the first cause, *existence* (ignoring the problem i mentioned in my previous paragraph). At some point *existence* had to be followed up by a second thing, or property, second only to existence. Would you say that there are any preconditions for existence to cause that second thing? Can / must have existence be the cause of that second thing in a logical only fashion? As i understood Aquinas, as he is presented to me here, it is. But how so? How can existence, in an environment without time or space cause, logically, anything else? How can this thing (Aquinas said so: its *something*) exist, at all? Because he can conceive so? Because he can conceive of nothing else? Because he says so?
Thats my personal suspicion, for the record.

Please. regarding that "eternal" part of Plantinga: "eternal" or "eternity" is a temporal concept right?

I suppose so, since eternity is defined in terms of "time", whether its definition is "infinite time" or "beyond time".

Fair enough on your footnote.

Eternity is a temporal concept, and existence is the first cause, and existence is eternal (all claims you have made, or lets say claims of others you have restated here), right? How can existence be eternal (as Plantinga said) when modern cosmology shows strong evidence that at some point in the past time (and space) broke down, aka. there was no time, and thus no eternity? Ergo, the first cause can not have been eternal, or (as Plantinga defined it) couldnt have existed at all.

eternity is..."beyond time"

You/Plantinga seem to contradict yourself. Either eternity is a temporal concept or not. Either it is bound to time or not.

If eternity being not bound to time is a requirement for Plantingas argument, fine. I didnt make any claims here, he did. He/you needs to explain what an "eternity without time" is and how its supposed to work, before i accept any of that.

If eternity is bound to time then i dont see the possibility of a first cause, because ...planck time, and the intellectually honest conclusion is: We.dont.fucking.know