Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:Because all the events CONVERGE on a single cause. For there to be a second cause you need a separate chain of events. Consider this, say you have 100 links of a chain and you can spot the first master link, that is your first cause, it is a single link which starts off all other. Now you are saying why can't there be a second master link and I am telling you, you don't need one, you can already see that all which follows, that is the 100 chain links, can be connected and executed in a chain with one master link already. There is no need for a second master link. In order to have a second link, you need a second chain of events.

If all events that exist converged on multiple causes; how would things be different?

Ken

I am not sure how that matters. Use Occam's here.

But let me entertain you for a while. The whole idea is that every link in the chain is connected or in simple words everything is connected from a singular beginning, as that is the base principle we start with as we count back i.e counting all events back to a cause, a beginning, like a chain. So if multiple first causes exist they must also be connected on a higher tier but connected nonetheless until they also all converge on a single master first cause.

Ken, are you arguing for many gods?

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, are you arguing for many gods?

I think he's just questioning why there can't be more than one God. My son is having the same questions too.

IMO, you guys are giving him the right answers. He's just not grasping it. Keep at it though. Maybe something will click for him.

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:Because all the events CONVERGE on a single cause. For there to be a second cause you need a separate chain of events. Consider this, say you have 100 links of a chain and you can spot the first master link, that is your first cause, it is a single link which starts off all other. Now you are saying why can't there be a second master link and I am telling you, you don't need one, you can already see that all which follows, that is the 100 chain links, can be connected and executed in a chain with one master link already. There is no need for a second master link. In order to have a second link, you need a second chain of events.

If all events that exist converged on multiple causes; how would things be different?

Ken

I am not sure how that matters. Use Occam's here.

But let me entertain you for a while. The whole idea is that every link in the chain is connected or in simple words everything is connected from a singular beginning, as that is the base principle we start with as we count back.

That would only work if we start with the assumption that everything has a singular beginning. I am asking how we know the assumption is correct.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, are you arguing for many gods?

No; I am arguing against a single beginning; for the possibility of multiple beginnings.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:Because all the events CONVERGE on a single cause. For there to be a second cause you need a separate chain of events. Consider this, say you have 100 links of a chain and you can spot the first master link, that is your first cause, it is a single link which starts off all other. Now you are saying why can't there be a second master link and I am telling you, you don't need one, you can already see that all which follows, that is the 100 chain links, can be connected and executed in a chain with one master link already. There is no need for a second master link. In order to have a second link, you need a second chain of events.

If all events that exist converged on multiple causes; how would things be different?

Ken

I am not sure how that matters. Use Occam's here.

But let me entertain you for a while. The whole idea is that every link in the chain is connected or in simple words everything is connected from a singular beginning, as that is the base principle we start with as we count back.

That would only work if we start with the assumption that everything has a singular beginning. I am asking how we know the assumption is correct.

Ken

No, not everything has a singular beginning.
Things that COME INTO BEING have a beginning and because you can't have infinite regression of what causes something to be, then you end up at the first cause.
Can there be more than ONE first cause? or more than one unmoved mover?
That is a good question actually.
Let me ask you this, since the first cause must be pure actuality ( and it must logically speaking) then it is always "doing something" , so what would the "other first cause" be doing?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, are you arguing for many gods?

No; I am arguing against a single beginning; for the possibility of multiple beginnings.

Ken

Were there false starts or something?
One god jumped the mark too early perhaps with creating?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Even if matter is postualted to be eternal, matter is still potential (contingent) and therefore dependent on another (in act).

Let me put it this way; why can't matter be eternal, multiple, contingent upon one another, and still be a cause?

Because change would then be impossible.

Why is change impossible under these conditions?

Go back to our previous discussion regarding essentially ordered causal relations. An infinite chain is impossible, therefore a first cause is the only logical conclusion.

Kenny wrote:

kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: You are simply wrong. Multiple things cannot be identical and different at the same time

No; Identical but separate.

Byblos wrote:You still don't get it. If they are identical they cannot be separate whereas if they are separate they must be distinguishable. And if they are distinguishable they cannot be identical. In essence what you are saying is A is not A, clearly a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Right now I am looking at several blank sheets of paper, each identical, and indistinguishable from each other, yet they are not the same sheet of paper. In my tool box I have 2 socket wrenches each identical to each other, yet they are not the same tool. These items are completely separate from each other, yet they are identical inside and out. Obviously you disagree; so tell me where am I going wrong here.

Kenny, the fact that you can see two of them proves they are not identical. The mere fact that they occupy a different section of space-time proves they are not identical. If A and B are identical in every respect then it is not enough to state A=B, it would then necessarily follow that A IS B and B IS A, i.e. they are one and the same. I'm not sure how else to make something this obvious more, well ... obvious.

Post edit: here's an example Kenny, perhaps this will make it clearer. Take those two pieces of paper that are seamingly identical and scrible on one the letter A, and on the other the letter B. Now look at them, do you think they are identical still? Of course not, so how could two distinct somethings be identical in instance and not in another? They can't because they were not identical to begin with, appearances to the contrary.

Somebody explain to this poor fellow Leibniz' Law of Indicernibles.

Jac,

Kenny is obtuse. He cannot be reasoned with.

The writing on the paper is a good example. If all the sheets of paper were identical then if you wrote on one, the writing would be identical on all sheets of paper.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:That would only work if we start with the assumption that everything has a singular beginning. I am asking how we know the assumption is correct.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:No, not everything has a singular beginning.
Things that COME INTO BEING have a beginning and because you can't have infinite regression of what causes something to be, then you end up at the first cause.
Can there be more than ONE first cause? or more than one unmoved mover?
That is a good question actually.

That is the question I am asking.

PaulSacramento wrote:[Let me ask you this, since the first cause must be pure actuality ( and it must logically speaking) then it is always "doing something" , so what would the "other first cause" be doing?

For the sake of argument, if we assume the first cause must be pure actuality, the other first causes would be doing something as well.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, are you arguing for many gods?

No; I am arguing against a single beginning; for the possibility of multiple beginnings.

Ken

Were there false starts or something?
One god jumped the mark too early perhaps with creating?

We're not at God yet, we are still debating if a single cause is the only option.

Ken

Byblos
Kenny, the fact that you can see two of them proves they are not identical. The mere fact that they occupy a different section of space-time proves they are not identical. If A and B are identical in every respect then it is not enough to state A=B, it would then necessarily follow that A IS B and B IS A, i.e. they are one and the same. I'm not sure how else to make something this obvious more, well ... obvious.
How are you defining “identical”? I define it as does the dictionary as: alike in every way IOW by definition, identical must be more than one; it is plural. Nobody looks at a single thing and calls it identical.
Post edit: here's an example Kenny, perhaps this will make it clearer. Take those two pieces of paper that are seamingly identical and scrible on one the letter A, and on the other the letter B. Now look at them, do you think they are identical still?

Ken
Of course not! They’ve been altered.


Byblos
Of course not, so how could two distinct somethings be identical in instance and not in another? They can't because they were not identical to begin with, appearances to the contrary.

Ken
They are identical until somebody comes along and changes one or both of them. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.

Ken

jlay wrote:Jac,

Kenny is obtuse. He cannot be reasoned with.

The writing on the paper is a good example. If all the sheets of paper were identical then if you wrote on one, the writing would be identical on all sheets of paper.

No! If you write on one sheet of paper, it is no longer identical because it has been altered. Remember; identical is plural; more than one. Identical is never by itself it's always used in reference to something else

Ken

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:Because all the events CONVERGE on a single cause. For there to be a second cause you need a separate chain of events. Consider this, say you have 100 links of a chain and you can spot the first master link, that is your first cause, it is a single link which starts off all other. Now you are saying why can't there be a second master link and I am telling you, you don't need one, you can already see that all which follows, that is the 100 chain links, can be connected and executed in a chain with one master link already. There is no need for a second master link. In order to have a second link, you need a second chain of events.

If all events that exist converged on multiple causes; how would things be different?

Ken

I am not sure how that matters. Use Occam's here.

But let me entertain you for a while. The whole idea is that every link in the chain is connected or in simple words everything is connected from a singular beginning, as that is the base principle we start with as we count back.

That would only work if we start with the assumption that everything has a singular beginning. I am asking how we know the assumption is correct.

Ken

Because its the most simple logical conclusion. Simple, not simpler.