Evidence for God from Science

Just wondering does there have to be an uncaused first cause?

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 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

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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 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

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?

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.

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

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

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