Uncaused first cause

[Byblos]

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!

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

Dude, please I beg of you, if you're not gonna take this seriously then don't waste my time, will you. With every word you utter you sound less and less coherent. Before you engage in such topics I urge you to study some basic philosophy.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
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.

No Kenny. Jac explains in that post, why there can only be one uncaused cause when he wrote:

Jac wrote:
The same case can be made with regard to God being the First Cause. There can only be one First Cause, because if there were two First Causes, then either both are the First Cause of everything (in which case there is no way to distinguish them),or one is the First Cause of only some events and not others; but if one is only the First Cause of some events, then one is not the First Cause at all (by definition).

Kenny,

Non-intelligent, non-omnipotent, non-creative things can't be a first cause that creates something else. Kenny, I'm afraid Byblos is right. If you can't understand the basics about what attributes a first cause has to have, then this conversation is going to go nowhere. A rock cannot be an uncaused first cause.

[RickD]

Byblos,

I think Kenny is arguing for divine simplicity. What do you think?

Kenny wrote:
No, an uncaused cause is not required to contain everything, An uncaused cause could be as simple as a rock!

[Kenny]

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!

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

Dude, please I beg of you, if you're not gonna take this seriously then don't waste my time, will you. With every word you utter you sound less and less coherent. Before you engage in such topics I urge you to study some basic philosophy.

I realize much of what I say as an atheist might sound crazy to you as a christian; but you also need to realize that much of what you say as a Christian sounds crazy to me as an atheist. The difference is; rather than condesending remarks I explain why what you say sounds crazy to me. All that I ask is that you grant me the same courtesy.

Ken

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
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.

No Kenny. Jac explains in that post, why there can only be one uncaused cause when he wrote:

Jac wrote:
The same case can be made with regard to God being the First Cause. There can only be one First Cause, because if there were two First Causes, then either both are the First Cause of everything (in which case there is no way to distinguish them),or one is the First Cause of only some events and not others; but if one is only the First Cause of some events, then one is not the First Cause at all (by definition).

IMO Jack was wrong when he said that. A first cause is not required to be the first cause of everything, it just needs to be the first cause of something. If you disagree, please explain why.

Kenny,

Non-intelligent, non-omnipotent, non-creative things can't be a first cause that creates something else.

I did not say "create something else", I said caused something else. Big difference.

Ken

[Byblos]

I realize much of what I say as an atheist might sound crazy to you as a christian; but you also need to realize that much of what you say as a Christian sounds crazy to me as an atheist. The difference is; rather than condesending remarks I explain why what you say sounds crazy to me. All that I ask is that you grant me the same courtesy.

The courtesy for what, to deny basic logic and reason? I don't think so. What I'm telling you is not some subjective opinion kenny, it is well thought out reasoning that's been developed hundreds and thousands of years ago and still stands to this day, you wanna why? Because it is based on sound principles of logic and reason, it has nothing to do with religion. You deny sound philosophical principles and you do so to your own detriment. Your arguments sound just a tad less sophisticated than a 3 year old taking a tantrum, sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting na na na na. Either engage in the topic with something more useful than a rock being a first uncaused cause or simply admit you have no clue what I'm talking about and I'd be happy to expand more on it. But please don't make this into we'll just agree to disagree type of discussion because it ain't.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
I did not say "create something else", I said caused something else. Big difference.

Kenny,
In this context, creating and causing is the same thing.

So if I word it like this instead:

Non-intelligent, non-omnipotent, non-creative things can't be a first cause that causes something else.

It's still saying the same thing.

[Kenny]

The courtesy for what, to deny basic logic and reason?

The courtesy of explaining why you disagree with me. Thus far you haven't done this.

Bla, bla, bla.......well thought out reasoning .....Bla, bla, bla........hundreds and thousands of years ago..... Bla, bla, bla........no clue what I'm talking about.....Bla, bla, bla......

C'mon dude you're better than this! I've conversated with you before; let's try again. Now if you disagree with anything I've said, explain why; otherwise you're just wasting my time.

Ken

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I did not say "create something else", I said caused something else. Big difference.

Kenny,
In this context, creating and causing is the same thing.

So if I word it like this instead:

Non-intelligent, non-omnipotent, non-creative things can't be a first cause that causes something else.

It's still saying the same thing.

For the record, to cause something to exist does not mean to create something from nothing. Now if you have a different definition of the word then you might wanna explain your definition to ensure we are speaking the same language here.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
For the record, to cause something to exist does not mean to create something from nothing. Now if you have a different definition of the word then you might wanna explain your definition to ensure we are speaking the same language here.

Kenneth, Kenneth, Kenneth,

The thread is about an uncaused first cause. An uncaused first cause would have to create ex nihilo. If nothing exists except the uncaused first cause, there's nothing that first cause can create from except itself. So in this context an uncaused cause's first cause IS creation ex nihilo.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
For the record, to cause something to exist does not mean to create something from nothing. Now if you have a different definition of the word then you might wanna explain your definition to ensure we are speaking the same language here.

Kenneth, Kenneth, Kenneth,

The thread is about an uncaused first cause. An uncaused first cause would have to create ex nihilo. If nothing exists except the uncaused first cause, there's nothing that first cause can create from except itself. So in this context an uncaused cause's first cause IS creation ex nihilo.

But I introduced the idea of multiple things having always existed; and that is what we are discussing now.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
For the record, to cause something to exist does not mean to create something from nothing. Now if you have a different definition of the word then you might wanna explain your definition to ensure we are speaking the same language here.

Kenneth, Kenneth, Kenneth,

The thread is about an uncaused first cause. An uncaused first cause would have to create ex nihilo. If nothing exists except the uncaused first cause, there's nothing that first cause can create from except itself. So in this context an uncaused cause's first cause IS creation ex nihilo.

But I introduced the idea of multiple things having always existed; and that is what we are discussing now.

Ken

No Kenny. Nobody is discussing the ridiculous, illogical idea that multiple things have always existed. If you want to give up that absurdity, we can discuss the topic at hand.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
For the record, to cause something to exist does not mean to create something from nothing. Now if you have a different definition of the word then you might wanna explain your definition to ensure we are speaking the same language here.

Kenneth, Kenneth, Kenneth,

The thread is about an uncaused first cause. An uncaused first cause would have to create ex nihilo. If nothing exists except the uncaused first cause, there's nothing that first cause can create from except itself. So in this context an uncaused cause's first cause IS creation ex nihilo.

But I introduced the idea of multiple things having always existed; and that is what we are discussing now.

Ken

No Kenny. Nobody is discussing the ridiculous, illogical idea that multiple things have always existed. If you want to give up that absurdity, we can discuss the topic at hand.

Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Ken

[Byblos]

Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

[Kenny]

Why is it absurd? Okay! okay, in an effort to understand this method to your madness; let me see if I am getting this straight; You have no problem believing one single thing being the state of always existing; of course that's perfectly logical! But the idea that multiple things could be the state of always existing..... That's absurd??? Please explain the philosophical thinking behind this approach.

Go back and reread what I wrote re: the absurdity of having more than one uncaused cause. If you have questions, ask them, instead of offering unsubstantiated, subjective opinions (see how I keep interjecting the word 'subjective' in the correct context! ).

You take for granted that the first cause as a creator which requires intelligence. My point is, the first cause doesn’t have to create; it can become responsible for the existence of something else in other ways than creating.

Ken