Evidence for God from Science

Thread split from this thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 33&t=39840

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

To be the uncaused cause of everything you would have to be the most maximally greatest being in existence, to have more than one maximally great being would be illogical as one cannot be maximally great if another is also maximally great, therefore there is only one maximally great being.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Well, at least you're not asking why can't there be "nothing" that always existed which caused "something".

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Because logically you don't have the warrant to have multiple causes, at that point only one would do. I'll refer you to Jac's convo with NSV. At the end there should just be one uncaused cause.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

To be the uncaused cause of everything you would have to be the most maximally greatest being in existence, to have more than one maximally great being would be illogical as one cannot be maximally great if another is also maximally great, therefore there is only one maximally great being.

I didn't ask anything about the cause of everything, or maximally great; I only asked why can't there be multiple uncaused causes. If there can be one, logic tells me there can be more than one. Where am I going wrong here?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Well, at least you're not asking why can't there be "nothing" that always existed which caused "something".

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. I've never asked such a question.

Ken

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Because logically you don't have the warrant to have multiple causes, at that point only one would do.

Why? Please explain.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Because logically you don't have the warrant to have multiple causes, at that point only one would do.

Why? Please explain.

Ken

The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

Byblos wrote:First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

*How do you know matter cannot exist eternally?
*How do you know something eternal cannot constantly change, or multiple eternal things contingent upon one other thus changing constantly?

Byblos wrote: But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

Multiple things that are identical are not one; they are just multiple things that are identical

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

*How do you know matter cannot exist eternally?

I made no claim whatsoever on the eternality of matter. In fact, it is irrelevant. Even if matter is postualted to be eternal, matter is still potential (contingent) and therefore dependent on another (in act).

Kenny wrote:*How do you know something eternal cannot constantly change, or multiple eternal things contingent upon one other thus changing constantly?

Same answer as above. Even if contigent things always existed they are still contingent and therefore dependent on another.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

Multiple things that are identical are not one; they are just multiple things that are identical

You are simply wrong. Multiple things cannot be identical and different at the same time in the same respect. That's a violation of the law of non-contradiction. They are either identical in every respect and therefore are one and the same, or they are distinguishable and therefore different.

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?

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

No; Identical but separate.

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.

kenny wrote:

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

No; Identical but separate.

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.

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?

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.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.

If you're referring to Aristotle's argument for an uncaused cause then he certainly was referring to the Christian God (though of course, he didn't refer to him as such) as, by definition, there can be one and only one uncaused cause.

Why can't there be multiple uncaused causes?

Ken

Because logically you don't have the warrant to have multiple causes, at that point only one would do.

Why? Please explain.

Ken

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.

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