Nobody Dies for a Lie

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that? Perhaps the material Cosmos, like your god, just sat there for an eternity causing nothing when all of a sudden it bore a material world.

this hypothetical is in contradiction with the evidence. We do not have any evidence indicating our physical existence sat there and did nothing. Yes, our physical existence is possibly eternal, and it likely continually did things and new universes were the result.

[37818]

How do you know that?

In order to even have some kind of eternal substance from which everything else came, you would have to have an uncaused existence in any case. Why wouldn't that be so?

Perhaps the material Cosmos, like your god, just sat there for an eternity causing nothing when all of a sudden it bore a material world.

Again such a perhaps would still need an uncaused existence in which that perhaps to take place.

There had to be a first cause, therefore god did it.

Why must there be a first cause? Again there would still need to be an uncaused existence in order for there to be a first uncaused cause.

[37818]

No, such a universe would be an uncaused existence, just like you claim god to be. Except that for the former there is theoretical evidence supporting the concept but for the latter there is only Bronze Age theology.

There has to be an uncaused existence in any case. How would you not have an uncaused existence?

Your argument is based upon a conditional assertion, i.e. IF there is an uncaused existence, which you assume to be the case, and then it must be god.

Why wouldn't there be an uncaused existence? And why does that necessitate that that be God? What is the argument as to why?

[JimL]

In order to even have some kind of eternal substance from which everything else came, you would have to have an uncaused existence in any case. Why wouldn't that be so?

That would be so, obviously. No need to define that substance as something different than that which it is the cause. You are the same substance as that of your mother.

Again such a perhaps would still need an uncaused existence in which that perhaps to take place.

Correct, the uncaused existence being the material substance out of which its differing forms are caused.

Why must there be a first cause? Again there would still need to be an uncaused existence in order for there to be a first uncaused cause.

That's your argument, not mine. If the material substance, or the greater Cosmos, is eternal, then it isn't caused, ergo no first cause.

[Tassman]

There has to be an uncaused existence in any case. How would you not have an uncaused existence?

If the natural material universe(s) is infinite and eternal, as is believed by many cosmologists, then it isn't caused. It is no different in principle from the eternal god that you postulate. There are mathematical models for the former but no evidence for the latter.

[37818]

That would be so, obviously. No need to define that substance as something different than that which it is the cause. You are the same substance as that of your mother.

No. You are talking non sense. How is space and matter the same substance? Humans are flesh. Living flesh is yet something else though it be within space and made up of matter. Existence and cause are two things even as you suppose the same subtance.

Correct, the uncaused existence being the material substance out of which its differing forms are caused.

But your concept of one universal substance does not make the distinctions between existence and causation. In order for there to be substance it has to exist. Uncaused existence is a starting point for anything.

That's your argument, not mine. If the material substance, or the greater Cosmos, is eternal, then it isn't caused, ergo no first cause.

Again, existence and cause are different. It is cause that has to have existence. Uncaused existence needs no cause!

[37818]

If the natural material universe(s) is infinite and eternal, as is believed by many cosmologists, then it isn't caused.

What is not caused? Material universe is made up of causes. In order for the universe(s) to be eternal it must include uncaused existence.

It is no different in principle from the eternal god that you postulate. There are mathematical models for the former but no evidence for the latter.

You are confused. An uncaused universe(s) or uncaused god need an uncaused existence. The universe(s) need to included it, and in order for there to even be an uncaused god, that god must be that uncaused existence or that god is no god. So those two arguments are not the same.

[Tassman]

There has to be an uncaused existence in any case. How would you not have an uncaused existence?

Same way that you would have an uncaused deity, namely that it just "is".

Why wouldn't there be an uncaused existence? And why does that necessitate that that be God? What is the argument as to why?

Because, according to you 'god did it'...i.e. an 'Argument from Ignorance'.

[JimL]

No. You are talking non sense. How is space and matter the same substance? Humans are flesh. Living flesh is yet something else though it be within space and made up of matter. Existence and cause are two things even as you suppose the same subtance.

First off, space is material, it bends and warps due to the material mass moving within it. And cause is not a thing so I can't understand what you're trying to say.

But your concept of one universal substance does not make the distinctions between existence and causation. In order for there to be substance it has to exist. Uncaused existence is a starting point for anything.

Yeah, so, the universe, or what I call the greater Cosmos, is uncaused and that which is born of it is a result of the formers causal nature. What's the problem?

Again, existence and cause are different. It is cause that has to have existence. Uncaused existence needs no cause!

True, an eternal universe needs no cause, because it's eternal. What's your point? Cause and effect is the nature of eternal existence and the same would need be applied in describing a creator god.

[37818]

Same way that you would have an uncaused deity, namely that it just "is".

Uncaused existence has no cause. Caused existence is contingent.

Because, according to you 'god did it'...i.e. an 'Argument from Ignorance'.

That may be true, but that is not my argument. My argument is uncaused existence has no cause and is the only thing that is self existent. So unless God is uncaused existence, there is no God. God's identity is being the uncaused existence which is self existent. The only argument you can have is that God is not God.

[37818]

First off, space is material, it bends and warps due to the material mass moving within it. And cause is not a thing so I can't understand what you're trying to say.

Finite and temporal.

Yeah, so, the universe, or what I call the greater Cosmos, is uncaused and that which is born of it is a result of the formers causal nature. What's the problem?

You still fail to make a distinction between uncaused existence and things contingent.

True, an eternal universe needs no cause, because it's eternal. What's your point? Cause and effect is the nature of eternal existence and the same would need be applied in describing a creator god.

What is eternal is uncaused existence. Which would have to be part of such a universe in order for it to be eternal.

[Tassman]

Uncaused existence has no cause. Caused existence is contingent.


That may be true, but that is not my argument. My argument is uncaused existence has no cause and is the only thing that is self existent. So unless God is uncaused existence, there is no God. God's identity is being the uncaused existence which is self existent. The only argument you can have is that God is not God.

It is just as possible to claim that natural law and material existence are uncaused existence and eternal as it is to claim the existence of an uncaused, eternally existing god.

[Tassman]

Yeah, so, the universe, or what I call the greater Cosmos, is uncaused and that which is born of it is a result of the formers causal nature. What's the problem?

The problem is that 37818 wants it to be god and he won't countenance any alternative arguments. "Denial" is the word that springs to mind.

[JimL]

Finite and temporal.
You still fail to make a distinction between uncaused existence and things contingent.

What is eternal is uncaused existence. Which would have to be part of such a universe in order for it to be eternal.

You just can't seem to understand that the eternal and the temporal can be different aspects of one and the same thing. The temporal are merely forms of the eternal, so with respect to their cause, they are also eternal. Our material universe is only 14 billion years old, but it is of one and the same material nature as its cause, which is itself eternal.

[37818]

It is just as possible to claim that natural law and material existence are uncaused existence and eternal as it is to claim the existence of an uncaused, eternally existing god.

Natural law would also have to be more than uncaused existence. Since natural law governs temporal things. Material existence can never be the uncaused existence. Space is not material, though space is contingent on matter. Space is not uncaused. So saying that it is possible for material existence to be uncaused existence, possible how? Since material is not everything (not space) and not everywhere (space which is caused by matter might be considered everywhere). Explain.