(May 24, 2018 at 6:42 pm)SteveII Wrote:(May 23, 2018 at 10:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Read Spinoza if you're really stuck on the PSR. The only attribute required for a first cause is that it is itself uncaused (or perhaps self-caused). It is erroneous to think that a first cause needs any other attributes than that.
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)".
(May 24, 2018 at 6:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
(May 24, 2018 at 6:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
