Creationism

[GrandizerII]

Already done multiple times. Look at the first premise of the general argument you wrote. Which actual cosmological argument contains that premise in that form?

Specifically, all three of saint tommys cosmological arguments...in order, no less.

The argument from the first mover.
The argument from causation.
The argument from contingency.

That is what those arguments state.

No they don't. Neither does the Kalam for that matter. None of them state that all things that exist must be unconditionally caused, therefore god. There's always some condition such as: "potency", "essence and existence not identical", "contingency", "begin to exist".

It's misleading to argue that any of these arguments follow the form you stated above.

[Belacqua]

None of them state that all things that exist must be unconditionally caused, therefore god.

Maybe it would help to state the opening premise in each way, and see if that premise itself is open to challenge.

1) The potential in anything can only be actualized by something which is already actual.

2) A thing cannot be the efficient cause of itself.

3) If there had ever been a time when nothing at all existed, then nothing could have come to exist. 

Each of these, on its own, should be addressed before anybody needs to bring God into it.

[GrandizerII]

I agree, but I would like to also see Gae acknowledge that the general argument he presented is a strawman.

Quoting his first premise below:

Everything that exists must have a creator/cause/explanation.

I'm not sure how any of the first premises in these arguments properly correspond to the premise quoted here.

[Deesse23]

Does the first cause/mover/pink unicorn "exist", does it have a kind of "existence"?

[GrandizerII]

Does the first cause/mover/pink unicorn "exist", does it have a kind of "existence"?

Overlooking the "pink unicorn" bit and therefore treating this question seriously:

According to Aquinas: my understanding (and it's always open to correction because I'm a dummy when it comes to Aquinas' metaphysics) is the first cause is basically existence that grounds the existence of everything else. So yes, it exists, but in the sense that its existence and essence are one and the same thing (unlike us beings that require the act of existence to be conjoined to our essence by something else). And it has no potential to "not exist".

According to WLC/Plantinga/other theistic personalists: Generally, the first cause exists eternally and necessarily. It is not absolutely simple like the Thomistic version, but it too would be metaphysically impossible to "not exist"

And if you're asking for my view: still thinking about it. The metaphysical position I tentatively hold to atm doesn't "care" whether there's a first cause or not. Perhaps existential inertia is a thing after all, and no first cause is needed to sustain the existence of anything, I don't know.

[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".

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*?

WLC: Please, lets not waste our time with that dishonest clown. Please. regarding that "eternal" part of Plantinga: "eternal" or "eternity" is a temporal concept right?

*this distinction matters, or else we would be stuck with all kinda problems/fallacies, at least thats my understanding

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

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.

WLC: Please, lets not waste our time with that dishonest clown.

Oh well, doesn't bother me.

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.

[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

[GrandizerII]

Fair points. I will personally take the time to address as much of what you say here once I have the time, Deese. I just want to state one thing though regarding Platinga is that he's not known for popularizing any first cause argument.* So when I mentioned him, I didn't mean to treat him individualistically but rather as part of a group of theistic philosophers known as "theistic personalists". They tend to believe many similar things about God's nature though, and I'm pretty sure he does believe that the first cause is eternal (well, I'd be surprised if he didn't).

*He is known, however for his Modal Ontological Argument obviously.

[Deesse23]

For the record: Nothing of what i wrote is supposed to be taken personally. I fully understand that you are entertaining (philosophical) thoughts, not making claims or proclamation about reality. You clearly have said so.

I am engaging at all with you here because of your intellectual honesty and lack of Hybris unlike some other members on this board who would dismiss my objections as simply being below them, or suggesting i should read more Aquinas.

I am also sure that i have set up one or two traps . Either Plantinga/Aquinas are more easy to refute than i thought or we (you in this case, me possibly as well) dont know enough tabout their positions to properly discuss them online. My experience tells me that a shockingly high portion of people (myself possibly included) are way out of their debt in terms of philosophy and science, and we possibly should refrain from discussing stuff in depth thats too complex for amateurs like ourselves. There is still cat memes, and NFL.

My position on, particularly Aquinas´, efforts is clear: He was looking for a way to justify his belief (as were many others). That made him biased, and should caution everyone else when examining his aruments. It does not automatically disqualify his views.

I also dont blame him for having lack of insight to the nature of reality compared what we have now. I blame however everyone who, dishonestly, tries to prop up his (or anyone elses´) arguments that have shown to be faulty in their core. Like WLC does with his version of the Kalam (Everyone that begins to exist...). If you need scientific knowledge to prop up your philosophical/religious beliefs, and then claim that your position is based on some metaphysics beyond science (or what it ever can be)...then you have disproven yourself already. If you claim that your beliefs are based on and supported by scientific knowledge, why oppose the conclusion science suggests about gods or first causes: We.dont.fucking.know. We dont even have the language to discuss this (regarding everything *pre big-bang*) yet.