Uncaused what?

[37818]

Simply both potentially represent 'What is the "uncaused?"

If the 'Source' some call God(s) exists, the 'Source' determines the 'Ultimate Why?' which is inherently unknown to humanity.

If the 'Source' some call God(s) does not exist, therefore the question of the 'Ultimate Why?' is simply meaningless, because we are the product of natural processes.

In the either or you presented you presume an existence in "exists" and "not exists." And then you presume an existence of "natural" and of "processes."

[shunyadragon]

In the either or you presented you presume an existence in "exists" and "not exists." And then you presume an existence of "natural" and of "processes."

The presumption of the existence of our physical existence is as it is regardless of whether God exists or not. We do not have a coherent logical argument concerning the necessity of a 'source' or 'beginnings' other than the nature of our physical existence.

Actually I presume 'natural processes' and natural law represents the nature of our physical existence. I believe that the 'Source' some call God(s) is the ultimate cause, but there is no evidence nor logical argument to support this.

[37818]

The presumption of the existence of our physical existence is as it is regardless of whether God exists or not. We do not have a coherent logical argument concerning the necessity of a 'source' or 'beginnings' other than the nature of our physical existence.

Actually I presume 'natural processes' and natural law represents the nature of our physical existence. I believe that the 'Source' some call God(s) is the ultimate cause, but there is no evidence nor logical argument to support this.

You list, "physical" existence, what you called, "natural processes" and "natural law" to represent the "nature of physical existence." And your idea of if there is a God is a matter of "physical" existence, so as you seem to argue. And you bring up a "Source" to be some kind of ultamate cause which lacks evidence and lacks logical arguments to support. None of that presents what you believe to be "uncaused."

[shunyadragon]

You list, "physical" existence, what you called, "natural processes" and "natural law" to represent the "nature of physical existence."

Ok.

. . . And your idea of if there is a God is a matter of "physical" existence, so as you seem to argue.

No, if there is a God, God is the "uncaused" 'Source' of our physical existence, and not physical in nature.

. . . And you bring up a "Source" to be some kind of ultimate cause which lacks evidence and lacks logical arguments to support. None of that presents what you believe to be "uncaused."

"Uncaused" simply means eternal without prior cause. If there is a God, God is "uncaused." If God does not exist, our physical existence is "uncaused."

[37818]

No, if there is a God, God is the "uncaused" 'Source' of our physical existence, and not physical in nature.

Do you not understand that an uncaused "Source" is contingent on there being an uncaused "Existence?"

"Uncaused" simply means eternal without prior cause. If there is a God, God is "uncaused." If God does not exist, our physical existence is "uncaused."

To exist or "not exist." Is to be contingent on an [uncaused] existence.

[shunyadragon]

Do you not understand that an uncaused "Source" is contingent on there being an uncaused "Existence?"

Yes. IF no God(s) exist, the Natural Laws and the nature of our eternal physical existence would the "uncaused" cause of everything.

To exist or "not exist." Is to be contingent on an [uncaused] existence.

True.