Uncaused first cause

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Post Reply
WannaLearn
Established Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:51 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Uncaused first cause

Post by WannaLearn »

Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?
Seraph
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Seraph »

It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.

At the very least, our universe definitely needed a cause since it has been shown to have had a beginning. For me, the only possible first causes are God or an eternal multiverse. I of course put most of my stock in the first one.
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
bippy123
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by bippy123 »

I personally like Peter Kreefts first cause argument.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Plus under the borde guth vilinken BGV theorem even the ,out overuse itself must have an ultimate beginning which means it couldn't be past eternal and itself needed to come into existence

Here William lane Craig and Robert Spitzer explain the BGV theorem here.
http://youtu.be/XcbFFvVeoAk

Here vilinken even says that William lane craig presented his theory honestly and.very well.

http://youtu.be/uZQnRYhy6N0
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by RickD »

Bippy wrote:
I personally like Peter Kreefts first cause argument.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Plus under the borde guth vilinken BGV theorem even the ,out overuse itself must have an ultimate beginning which means it couldn't be past eternal and itself needed to come into existence.
Bippy,

I like that first cause explanation. It's simple, logical, and easy to understand.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by RickD »

Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
Kenny,

Read the link that Bippy posted. The answer is in there:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Seraph
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Seraph »

Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
Complexity arises from simplicity, as evolutionary theory says. A trillion first causes sounds far too complicated for "the very beginning". At the same time, zero first causes would be simpler than one first cause, but this seems impossible as something can't arise out of "true" nothingness. If you trace the chain of causes and effects backward, it seems logical that eventually would have to reach a single cause that is itself uncaused.
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

Seraph wrote:Complexity arises from simplicity, as evolutionary theory says. A trillion first causes sounds far too complicated for "the very beginning".
Just because something sounds less complicated doesnt mean it is correct.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
Kenny,

Read the link that Bippy posted. The answer is in there:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
would you mind reading it and giving me a run-down as to why more than 1 first cause is not possible?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by RickD »

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
Kenny,

Read the link that Bippy posted. The answer is in there:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
would you mind reading it and giving me a run-down as to why more than 1 first cause is not possible?

Ken
Kenny,

I probably wouldn't explain it properly. But look at this thread. Specifically the first response by jac3510. He explains the answer to your question:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ds#p142287
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Seraph
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Seraph »

Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:Complexity arises from simplicity, as evolutionary theory says. A trillion first causes sounds far too complicated for "the very beginning".
Just because something sounds less complicated doesnt mean it is correct.

Ken
No but it seems logical. Why believe in something that seems totally illogical? Why would there be a trillion, or even two uncaused causes?
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Byblos »

Seraph wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:Complexity arises from simplicity, as evolutionary theory says. A trillion first causes sounds far too complicated for "the very beginning".
Just because something sounds less complicated doesnt mean it is correct.

Ken
No but it seems logical. Why believe in something that seems totally illogical? Why would there be a trillion, or even two uncaused causes?
It is logically impossible for there to be more than one uncaused cause for 2 main reasons;

1) if there were 2 of them then each must lack something the other has, they could not be identical, otherwise they would be one and the same. But if each is lacking something then by definition they cannot be the uncaused cause because their existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing.

2) 2 uncaused causes with the free will to create is a self-contradiction because it leaves open the possibility for one to create and the other to annihilate. Since existence well ... is ..., ergo there can only be one and only one uncaused cause.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:It seems likely. It doesn't really make much sense to have an endless chain going backwards of causes. At some point there probably has to be one which is eternal.
Why only 1 first cause? Why not 2? or 10? or a thousand? or a trillion first causes?

Ken
Kenny,

Read the link that Bippy posted. The answer is in there:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
would you mind reading it and giving me a run-down as to why more than 1 first cause is not possible?

Ken
Kenny,

I probably wouldn't explain it properly. But look at this thread. Specifically the first response by jac3510. He explains the answer to your question:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ds#p142287
Jack makes a different argument than the one I am asking. He makes a case for 1 God that is all knowing, powerful, perfect, etc. I am talking about a first cause that doesn't have to be any of those things. A first cause doesn't even have to be intelligent! Actually multiple non-intelligent first causes makes perfect sense; one that eventually causes the existence of cells, one that leads to soil, one leads to plant life, and others lead to the trillions of differen other types of matter that exist on Earth and everywhere else in the Universe.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

Seraph wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Seraph wrote:Complexity arises from simplicity, as evolutionary theory says. A trillion first causes sounds far too complicated for "the very beginning".
Just because something sounds less complicated doesnt mean it is correct.

Ken
No but it seems logical. Why believe in something that seems totally illogical? Why would there be a trillion, or even two uncaused causes?
Multiple first causes makes perfect sense because there are multiple different types of matter in the Universe that could have been caused by them.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Uncaused first cause

Post by Kenny »

Byblos wrote: It is logically impossible for there to be more than one uncaused cause for 2 main reasons;

1) if there were 2 of them then each must lack something the other has, they could not be identical, otherwise they would be one and the same. But if each is lacking something then by definition they cannot be the uncaused cause because their existence is contingent on something that lacks nothing.
No, an uncaused cause is not required to contain everything, An uncaused cause could be as simple as a rock!
Byblos wrote:2) 2 uncaused causes with the free will to create is a self-contradiction because it leaves open the possibility for one to create and the other to annihilate. Since existence well ... is ..., ergo there can only be one and only one uncaused cause.
You are error when you assume the first cause must be intelligent and have the ability to create. Multiple non intelligent first causes makes perfect sense because there are multiple types of matter that could have evolved from them.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Post Reply