The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Deesse23]

Obviously, when we total up all the stuff that's out there -- all the stuff that makes up the universe -- nearly all of it is clearly contingent….

We know almost nothing about "all the stuff that's out there". 
Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 95 % of this universe. 
We know nothing about what it is or how it acts. 
We know about 5 % of what comprises this universe. 
We know very little about reality between the quantum world and the macro world. 

If there are other universes we know nothing about them, or about the environment within which universes launch. 
Roger Penrose's Infinite Cycles proposes no cause is necessary at all. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_FUlo8BF9Y

Exactly. And if energy can not be created or destroyed, its not contingent. Ergo: All the stuff that makes up the universe -- nearly all of it is clearly NOT contingent….

[Belacqua]

Speaking only for myself, capitol-T Totality refers to some kind of Plotinus/neo-Platonic One or “the All”. While not a cause proper, the idea is of the all-encompassing wholeness of everything that exists. The Totality is akin to Anselm’s being the greater than which cannot be conceived. And the pantheism comes from Swedenborg’s visionary insight that God did not create ex nihilo; buth rather our of Himself, which to my mind implies an act of kenosis.

Yes, I think this is absolutely the way to go. 

It's not going to work if we keep thinking of the First Cause as something outside of or in addition to the universe. People are still thinking of the old man in the sky who pushes levers. It makes way more sense to see it as the One. 

I may be reading that through later thinkers, but as I understand it the One is, as you say, all there is. The fact that it appears to us as divided is only due to our limited perception -- we must divide to understand, but division is also an illusion. 

This would make the First Cause an essential cause, not temporal, since the One has no beginning. And, as you were saying earlier, it is immanent in every place and particle. 

The parallels here with Vedantic and Buddhist thinking here lend the whole thing weight. 

Does the idea of kenosis originate in Christianity? I'm thinking that if the One or God somehow lessens himself to create the world, that's kenosis. But if the apparent lessening is in fact due to our limited perception, then it there is no real kenosis. But I'm not sure about that. 

The physical universe for certain IMHO but of course opinions vary about the reality of other categories of being such qualities, universals, and mathematical objects…and that’s not to mention (I guess I am) meaning and/or intentionality as a real part of the cosmos that cannot be hand-waved away or taken for granted.

Yes, good point. These are all metaphysical things, and not testable by science. So I think the challenges to a First Cause through science are misguided.

Not a part. I think that is the mistake being made. Perhaps there is a distinct but inalienable quality common to all beings but rather than looking down to find a particular common quality that we look “up” to see what degree a particular being partakes of the nature of the whole….which IMHO can only be known by what it is not (the Negative Way).

You're right -- it would be a mistake for me to say that the First Cause is a part of the whole, or one of the things we could add to a list of all the things that exist in the world.

[Belacqua]

Obviously, when we total up all the stuff that's out there -- all the stuff that makes up the universe -- nearly all of it is clearly contingent….

We know almost nothing about "all the stuff that's out there". 
Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 95 % of this universe. 
We know nothing about what it is or how it acts. 
We know about 5 % of what comprises this universe. 
We know very little about reality between the quantum world and the macro world. 

If there are other universes we know nothing about them, or about the environment within which universes launch. 
Roger Penrose's Infinite Cycles proposes no cause is necessary at all. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_FUlo8BF9Y

Penrose does make an effective argument against a temporal First Cause. That's why I have never argued for a temporal First Cause. 

As far as I can tell, nothing Penrose says speaks at all against an essential First Cause. Or something like the Neoplatonic One, or the Brahman, or the Buddhist Not-Two. 

Nor does the fact that we don't understand Dark Matter, or multiple universes, etc. militate against an essential First Cause. 

Penrose seems to be popular here when we're talking about infinite regress. But when he says he believes that numbers have an existence that is independent of the minds which think of numbers, people point to his authority somewhat less.

[Angrboda]

"The One" has intractable mereological issues. It's basically an incoherent idea.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"The One" has intractable mereological issues. It's basically an incoherent idea.

So you say...:-) Why do you say that?

[Angrboda]

"The One" has intractable mereological issues.  It's basically an incoherent idea.

So you say...:-) Why do you say that?

You run into issues with the law of identity, but I'm not really up for a discussion.

[polymath257]

I think the  problem is in the word 'first'. The usual argument only gives the existence of an *uncaused* cause. As you point out, there is nothing that says that uncaused cause is unique.

Depends on whether the law of identity kicks because everything true of the one is also true in the same way and degree as it is of the other. Is there a difference?

Why would you think that everything true of one is also true of the other? For example, the uncaused causes could be in different positions or at different times. They may have different effects, which onw uncaused cause being the cause of one thing and others of different things. Perhaps some things are the effect of several different uncaused causes.

[Bucky Ball]

We know almost nothing about "all the stuff that's out there". 
Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 95 % of this universe. 
We know nothing about what it is or how it acts. 
We know about 5 % of what comprises this universe. 
We know very little about reality between the quantum world and the macro world. 

If there are other universes we know nothing about them, or about the environment within which universes launch. 
Roger Penrose's Infinite Cycles proposes no cause is necessary at all. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_FUlo8BF9Y

Penrose does make an effective argument against a temporal First Cause. That's why I have never argued for a temporal First Cause. 

As far as I can tell, nothing Penrose says speaks at all against an essential First Cause. Or something like the Neoplatonic One, or the Brahman, or the Buddhist Not-Two. 

Nor does the fact that we don't understand Dark Matter, or multiple universes, etc. militate against an essential First Cause. 

Penrose seems to be popular here when we're talking about infinite regress. But when he says he believes that numbers have an existence that is independent of the minds which think of numbers, people point to his authority somewhat less.

There is no reason to posit any sort of First Cause UNTIL we have some data from the environment EXTERNAL to this universe. 
All you're doing is slapping a principle you think you know from a tiny part of this universe onto an environment you know absolutely nothing about.
There is no reason to consider ANY origin theories until there is data.

[Deesse23]

As far as I can tell, nothing Penrose says speaks at all against an essential First Cause. Or something like the Neoplatonic One, or the Brahman, or the Buddhist Not-Two. 

...or pink unicorns.

Looks like someone is trying to shift the burden of proof. Nobody needs to falsify your argument. However YOU need to demonstrate that even the premises of it (like causation) are valid.

[Anomalocaris]

Theists uses the term “god” in an intentionally slippery way.  

I have no problem describing some overarching factor that dominated the formation of the universe we know as “god”.  In this case god could just be a stand in for any other symbol.


I only have a problem with associating what the symbol represent with anything else.


Either god created the universe, or god got nailed up on a plank, or god is enlightened, or good is good.  Not one of what the symbol “god” could mean in each of these proposition show any indication whatsoever of being the same thing as any of the others.


it is the slippery conflation of these 4 that betray the fundamental and itredemmeable dishonesty of the theist position.