The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[crepuscule]

I am not making either such generalizations. The argument is the whole is uncaused. And the parts are caused.

Well, did we not agree that what is uncaused is not caused? The regression as a whole is uncaused, and all its parts are caused.

Caused existence is contingent on there being uncaused existence. The regression as a whole is uncaused existence. All the caused existences which comprise the uncaused regression are caused. The caused existences are not uncaused. The whole regression is not caused.

Well, is not the uncaused existence of the regression made up of caused existences?

So are you arguing the uncaused regession is not any kind of reason for the infinite set of causes in which there would be no first cause?

reason for the infinite set of causes, it is the infinite set of causes.
Infinite set of causes with no first cause = uncaused regression of causes.

No. First and foremost God is uncaused existence. An uncaused cause is two things. While it is uncaused existence, it is also a cause. Causes are typically temporal and finite. Unless of course you allow an infinite regression with no first cause to have been caused. Which you do not want to conceptually to allow.

The big thing here is that an uncaused first cause or an uncaused existence need not be God. Therefore, concluding an uncaused first cause and uncaused existance exist is not proof of God. God is not synonymous with uncaused existence or first cause.

[37818]

So what exactly is the problem with an uncaused set of causes if all of its members are caused?

It is not a problem there being an uncaused existence. And there being caused existences.

The big thing here is that an uncaused first cause or an uncaused existence need not be God. Therefore, concluding an uncaused first cause and uncaused existence exist is not proof of God. God is not synonymous with uncaused existence or first cause.

Well first off, uncaused existence and an uncaused cause are two different things. Uncaused existence is one thing in and of itself and the other an uncaused cause is two things being contingent on uncaused existence in order to be an uncaused anything. Unless it is simply uncuased existence in and of itself. Then it is not two things.

Now what you need to explain is why an uncaused existence need not be God? When in fact nothing else can be God.

[crepuscule]

It is not a problem there being an uncaused existence. And there being caused existences.

Now what you need to explain is why an uncaused existence need not be God? When in fact nothing else can be God.

Again? I thought you already agreed that God is not just uncaused existence. An uncaused existence in itself need for instance not be personal, or wilfully causing (creating); qualities God must have in order to be God.
So nothing else can be God (if existing), true, but something else can be uncaused existence.

[37818]

Again? I thought you already agreed that God is not just uncaused existence. An uncaused existence in itself need for instance not be personal, or wilfully causing (creating); qualities God must have in order to be God.
So nothing else can be God (if existing), true, but something else can be uncaused existence.

I think we need to look at the attributes of uncaused existence. And find the point or points where we think we differ.

Uncaused existence is for one, omnipresent. Two, everything is contingent on it. So where do we agree or disagree here?

[crepuscule]

Uncaused existence is for one, omnipresent.

caused existence, no uncaused existence in sight. But then I realised the existence of the truth of 2+2=4 is uncaused and omnipresent, so some uncaused existence is omnipresent, but not all.

Two, everything is contingent on it.

No, not everything. Uncaused existence itself need not be contingent on uncaused existence.

[shunyadragon]

I think we need to look at the attributes of uncaused existence. And find the point or points where we think we differ.

Uncaused existence is for one, omnipresent. Two, everything is contingent on it. So where do we agree or disagree here?

OK, but again Natural Law can possibly be omnipresent. Two, everything is contingent on it.

[37818]

caused existence, no uncaused existence in sight. But then I realised the existence of the truth of 2+2=4 is uncaused and omnipresent, so some uncaused existence is omnipresent, but not allNo, not everything. Uncaused existence itself need not be contingent on uncaused existence.

Ok. We have two different views of the attributes of uncaused existence.

If you were to make an argument why there must be uncaused existence. What simple argument would you propose?

[crepuscule]

Ok. We have two different views of the attributes of uncaused existence.

Apparently we do. You apparently think that though my desk has many instances of caused existence, the uncaused existence that was first cause is also there, because you think uncaused existence is omnipresent. Where on my desk is uncaused existence?

You also think that everything is contingent on uncaused existence. Since uncaused existence itself is part of everything, you apparently believe that uncaused existence is contingent on uncaused existence.

If you were to make an argument why there must be uncaused existence. What simple argument would you propose?

We can observe effects and their causes. Working our way back on such a chain of existing cause & effect we either arrive at a first uncaused cause that exists (or has existed), or we never arrive there and are left with an infinite regression of causes. Neither that first cause nor the infinite regression itself were caused, yet one of them exists, so one of them has uncaused existence.

[37818]

Apparently we do. You apparently think that though my desk has many instances of caused existence, the uncaused existence that was first cause is also there, because you think uncaused existence is omnipresent. Where on my desk is uncaused existence?

You also think that everything is contingent on uncaused existence. Since uncaused existence itself is part of everything, you apparently believe that uncaused existence is contingent on uncaused existence.

I do not believe uncaused existence is part of everything. What I do know and believe is that everything is in the uncaused Existence. Being that the uncaused Existence is omnipresent.

And that the uncaused Cause is also another entity.

We can observe effects and their causes. Working our way back on such a chain of existing cause & effect we either arrive at a first uncaused cause that exists (or has existed), or we never arrive there and are left with an infinite regression of causes. Neither that first cause nor the infinite regression itself were caused, yet one of them exists, so one of them has uncaused existence.

Yes.

[crepuscule]

I do not believe uncaused existence is part of everything.

Something that exists is by definition part of everything that exists. A worldview that denies this is nonsensical.

[37818]

Something that exists is by definition part of everything that exists. A worldview that denies this is nonsensical.

In theology, God is omnipresent and everything is not part of God. God is in everything in that everything is in God's presence and is not part of God.

[Roy]

If you're going to laugh at some-one, it helps to be intelligent enough to understand what they are saying, lest the joke be on you instead.

You aren't.

[37818]

If you're going to laugh at some-one, it helps to be intelligent enough to understand what they are saying, lest the joke be on you instead.

You aren't.

Roy and to crepuscule.

You got me on this.

crepuscule,

Correct me if I am wrong. You were, as I understood your argument, arguing uncaused existence as a constituent of anything and everything that has any kind of existence. In which case, it would not be God (unless one was to be a pantheist). JimL, as I understand him, argues this, he calls it substance. The eternal substance of which all things consist.

Space as we know it, is how we experience physical existence. The concept of 2 + 2 = 4 would be an example of an eternal uncaused non physical existence. But none of the things which have space and are being in space are space itself. The concept of 2 + 2 is not all of the non physical uncaused existence.

So, in my thinking, just as space is unto itself a thing, what constitutes uncaused existence is unto itself, is of itself unique.

[crepuscule]

Correct me if I am wrong. You were, as I understood your argument, arguing uncaused existence as a constituent of anything and everything that has any kind of existence. In which case, it would not be God

No, it need not be God. I was arguing the argument from first cause or uncaused existence does at best prove a first cause exists, and an uncaused existence. But neither need be God; additional argumentation is required for that.

[37818]

No, it need not be God. I was arguing the argument from first cause or uncaused existence does at best prove a first cause exists, and an uncaused existence. But neither need be God; additional argumentation is required for that.

Actually only need two premises. One, that there is no God. And the second, that the uncaused existence cannot be God.

Now the question then becomes how can any theist put forth an argument to make the premise the "the uncaused existence cannot be God" to be an absurdity? Uncaused existence does not need any God.