Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Because Kenny doesn't understand first cause, he things that multiple first causes ( a logical contradiction like a square circle) are possible.

The flaw of square circles and other such logical contradictions can be easily explained. The fact this question cannot be, IMO shows that it is not a logical contradiction with the question that’s the problem, but faulty reasoning of the claim that is.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Because Kenny doesn't understand first cause, he things that multiple first causes ( a logical contradiction like a square circle) are possible.

The flaw of square circles and other such logical contradictions can be easily explained. The fact this question cannot be, IMO shows that it is not a logical contradiction with the question that’s the problem, but faulty reasoning of the claim that is.

Ken

No Ken,
You don't understand that there can only be ONE first cause.
With multiple first causes there are either no first causes OR the are all secondary to the actual first cause.
Again, you can't understand the first cause argument if you don't understand the difference between actuality and potentiality and how the first cause MUST be pure actuality and thus, the ONLY cause possible, ie: the first cause.

Paul: With multiple first causes...

With MULTIPLE first causes, A) They ALL must pre-exist all physical things (as the universe had a physical beginning), and B) they ALL would have to be eternal AND thus eternally causing things - meaning they would actually ALL be SIMULTANEOUS causes that preceded all we know, with some eternal forces being more powerful than others. But that still doesn't solve the issue of the intelligence and order instantly revealed as the universe began. And it doesn't explain the enormous number of complex designed things and processes. Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

And, for ANY eternal thing that has eternally been creating - how can one say there was a FIRST created thing for any eternal Cause that has eternally been creating? Christians can't even say that about God - as for what His FIRST created thing would have been - especially, as being creative is a major characteristic of God, who is eternal, and thus has been eternally creating in some dimensions or realms - which He also had to have produced. But when it comes to our universe, there HAS to be either a first or multiple eternal causes of its first things, as what It or "they" produced, shows immense intelligence.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Because Kenny doesn't understand first cause, he things that multiple first causes ( a logical contradiction like a square circle) are possible.

The flaw of square circles and other such logical contradictions can be easily explained. The fact this question cannot be, IMO shows that it is not a logical contradiction with the question that’s the problem, but faulty reasoning of the claim that is.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: No Ken,
You don't understand that there can only be ONE first cause.
With multiple first causes there are either no first causes OR the are all secondary to the actual first cause.

So because you say so, that makes it so? Got it!

PaulSacramento wrote: Again, you can't understand the first cause argument if you don't understand the difference between actuality and potentiality and how the first cause MUST be pure actuality and thus, the ONLY cause possible, ie: the first cause.

Actuality and Potentiality has nothing to do with why there can’t be multiple first causes but there must be one.

Ken

Actuality and Potentiality has nothing to do with why there can’t be multiple first causes but there must be one.

Ken

So, here we have the proof that Ken does NOT understand the argument, at all.

Paul: With multiple first causes...

Philip wrote: With MULTIPLE first causes, A) They ALL must pre-exist all physical things (as the universe had a physical beginning), and B) they ALL would have to be eternal AND thus eternally causing things, with some eternal forces being more powerful than others. But that still doesn't solve the issue of the intelligence and order instantly revealed as the universe began.

Intelligence and order is a different issue.

Philip wrote: And it doesn't explain the enormous number of complex designed things and processes. Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

Again; a different issue

Philip wrote: And, for ANY eternal thing that has eternally been creating - how can one say there was a FIRST created thing for any eternal Cause that has eternally been creating? Christians can't even say that about God - as for what His FIRST created thing would have been - especially, as being creative is a major characteristic of God, who is eternal, and thus has been eternally creating in some dimensions or realms - which He also had to have produced. But when it comes to our universe, there HAS to be either a first or multiple eternal causes of its first things, as what It or "they" produced, shows immense intelligence.

So… are you agreeing with me the possibility of multiple first/eternal causes?

The first cause, the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover Must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever, for it it has potential to be something else then it means that ANOTHER can act upon it and so it can't be the "first" or "uncaused" or "unmoved".
If there were multiple first causes they MUST be distinguished from one another, which means there must be something different in each from the other.
That means that they must have either something that the others don't or LACK something that the others do.
See where this is going right?

PaulSacramento wrote:The first cause, the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover Must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever, for it it has potential to be something else then it means that ANOTHER can act upon it and so it can't be the "first" or "uncaused" or "unmoved".
If there were multiple first causes they MUST be distinguished from one another, which means there must be something different in each from the other.
That means that they must have either something that the others don't or LACK something that the others do.
See where this is going right?

This was already explained to Kenny in the other thread I posted. He just doesn't get it.

Seriously, if I can understand it, anyone can. It's simple logic.

Ken: So… are you agreeing with me the possibility of multiple first/eternal causes?

Of course not, but I am saying that there HAD to be something eternal with those attributes - some great Intelligence with a purpose in what was created, and great power and ability, per what was created.

Ken: Intelligence and order is a different issue.

Ever see stupendous, massive complexity produced without some intelligence - or a complex language, FAR more complex than ANY human language? Of course not! Unfathomable order or complex things and designs, and their synergistic interactions and functionalities, require planning and intelligence! Such things show the exact opposite of non-intelligence.

Philip wrote: And it doesn't explain the enormous number of complex designed things and processes. Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

Ken: Again; a different issue

But a VERY relevant one, no, Ken?

PaulSacramento wrote:The first cause, the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover Must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever, for it it has potential to be something else then it means that ANOTHER can act upon it and so it can't be the "first" or "uncaused" or "unmoved".
If there were multiple first causes they MUST be distinguished from one another, which means there must be something different in each from the other.
That means that they must have either something that the others don't or LACK something that the others do.
See where this is going right?

Thanks for answering my question. But I don't see why different equals unable to do the same thing, even if there are slight slight variations. But assuming what you say is correct, why must we assume only one thing is responsible for all that exist rather than multiple things,even if they all have their own set of limitations; be responsible for all that exist.

Ken

Ken: So… are you agreeing with me the possibility of multiple first/eternal causes?

Philip wrote: Of course not, but I am saying that there HAD to be something eternal with those attributes - some great Intelligence with a purpose in what was created, and great power and ability, per what was created.

Are you speculating intelligence, and purpose was involved, because intelligence and purpose was the end result? Couldn't non purpose and non intelligence be responsible for the existence of something else non purposeful and non intelligent, than that something else evolves into something intelligent and purposeful?

Ken: Intelligence and order is a different issue.

Philip wrote: Ever see stupendous, massive complexity produced without some intelligence

Like a volcano, or a coral reef?

Philip wrote: or a complex language, FAR more complex than ANY human language? Of course not! Unfathomable order or complex things and designs, and their synergistic interactions and functionalities, require planning and intelligence! Such things show the exact opposite of non-intelligence.

Are you assuming that because we don’t see something in the 4% of the Universe mankind is familiar with, that it applies to the 96% of the Universe mankind has no clue about also? I can’t go along with that. There is far too much about the material world that we just don't know about to go making those kind of speculations IMO

Philip wrote: And it doesn't explain the enormous number of complex designed things and processes. Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

Ken: Again; a different issue

Philip wrote:But a VERY relevant one, no, Ken?

Ken: Are you speculating intelligence, and purpose was involved, because intelligence and purpose was the end result?

Of course! And because we have absolutely no evidence of intelligent, complex things and designs creating themselves, or suddenly appearing, within an intelligent cause and designer. It's common sense! But it's only challenged by those who are determined to believe the impossible, irrational is possible.

Ken: Couldn't non purpose and non intelligence be responsible for the existence of something else non purposeful and non intelligent, than that something else evolves into something intelligent and purposeful?

In the first place, before the Big Bang, NOTHING physically existed, not even matter, before anything could have begun to evolve - so that's your first massive problem. Does the non-material have the ability to create itself, much less physical things of astounding designs? Blind things don't PLAN! They don't recognize advantages of synergies, can't design, think, organize, etc. Ken, do you not realize you are asserting that these things CAN plan, organize, gain intelligence and then use it, etc? That's illogical. Unobserved anywhere. Unscientific. Etc. Let's not forget that the first moments of the universe, per the many scientific studies and tests that show what HAD to have occurred at the moment of the Big Bang, the things that instantly developed didn't have some vast amount of time to evolve, as sophisticated things of immense complexity IMMEDIATELY developed, in mere moments, and on an unfathomably vast scale.

Philip wrote: Ever see stupendous, massive complexity produced without some intelligence

Ken: Like a volcano, or a coral reef?

Ken, the processes behind those things are VERY complex and also entirely dependent upon what came into existence in the universe's first, astonishing moments! You shouldn't cherrypick existing things without acknowledging that, as it refutes your contention.

Philip: Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

Ken: Again; a different issue

Ken, you believe in unobserved, unproven things, which are illogical per our massive experiences and observations, and you believe blind, random things could possibly produce massive complexity and insanely narrow parameters of necessary previsions. You have a lot of faith in magic, in Pop Metaphysics! The universe provides massive evidences of intelligence and observable processes as to how all things must work (at least the frameworks and dependabilities) - and yet you believe non-intelligent, blind things can produce them? That non-physical things can produce physical ones. Just WOW! I'm in awe of the faith you have!

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The first cause, the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover Must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever, for it it has potential to be something else then it means that ANOTHER can act upon it and so it can't be the "first" or "uncaused" or "unmoved".
If there were multiple first causes they MUST be distinguished from one another, which means there must be something different in each from the other.
That means that they must have either something that the others don't or LACK something that the others do.
See where this is going right?

Thanks for answering my question. But I don't see why different equals unable to do the same thing, even if there are slight slight variations. But assuming what you say is correct, why must we assume only one thing is responsible for all that exist rather than multiple things,even if they all have their own set of limitations; be responsible for all that exist.

Ken

No one said that the first cause/unmoved mover is responsible for ALL the exists, only for things that come into existence.
You need to get your mind to understand pure actuality, a being ( not really a being but BEING) that is pure actuality with no potentiality can only exist as a single thing. There simply can't be multiples of them.
I know this is advanced philosophy and metaphysics and I appreciate you trying to grasp what we are saying.

It isn't about being able to do the same thing, its about the un-caused cause and unmoved mover HAVING to be pure actuality or else that would potentially be another cause/mover that can "move" it and we are back to the same point.

If A is different than B then A and B must not be the same, which means one of them has more or less of something that makes it different, which means they have potential to be something else or at least be ACTED upon by an outside force and us such, CAN'T be unmoved.

Ken: Are you speculating intelligence, and purpose was involved, because intelligence and purpose was the end result?

Philip wrote: course! And because we have absolutely no evidence of intelligent, complex things and designs creating themselves, or suddenly appearing, within an intelligent cause and designer. It's common sense! But it's only challenged by those who are determined to believe the impossible, irrational is possible.

Just because the end result is intelligence, that does not follow that its existence is the result of an even greater intelligence creating it, or it created itself. There are a lot more options than that.

Ken: Couldn't non purpose and non intelligence be responsible for the existence of something else non purposeful and non intelligent, than that something else evolves into something intelligent and purposeful?

Philip wrote: In the first place, before the Big Bang, NOTHING physical existed, not even matter, before anything could have begun to evolve - so that's your first massive problem.

There is no scientific theory that claims a time in history when absolutely nothing physically existed. The Big Bang starts with the singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
it doesn't address where it came from or how it got there because science doesn't know. To claim it just appeared out of nowhere, created itself, or was created from an intelligent being is speculation not scientific theory. I'm sure there are even some scientists who speculate about the origin of the singularity, but there isn't any theory to support this.

Philip wrote: Ever see stupendous, massive complexity produced without some intelligence

Ken: Like a volcano, or a coral reef?

Philip wrote: Ken, the processes behind those things are VERY complex and also entirely dependent upon what came into existence in the universe's first, astonishing moments! You shouldn't cherrypick existing things without acknowledging that, as it refutes your contention.

I'm not cherry picking; you asked for an example of something complex produced from non intelligence, I simply gave you an example

Philip: Non-intelligent causes cannot produce such things.

Ken: Again; a different issue

Philip wrote: Ken, you believe in unobserved, unproven things, which are illogical per our massive experiences and observations, and you believe blind, random things could possibly produce massive complexity and insanely narrow parameters of necessary previsions. You have a lot of faith in magic, in Pop Metaphysics! The universe provides massive evidences of intelligence and observable processes as to how all things must work (at least the frameworks and dependabilities) - and yet you believe non-intelligent, blind things can produce them? That non-physical things can produce physical ones. Just WOW! I'm in awe of the faith you have!

[/quote]

Wow! To spend that much time building a straw man just to tear it down! Feel better now?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The first cause, the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover Must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever, for it it has potential to be something else then it means that ANOTHER can act upon it and so it can't be the "first" or "uncaused" or "unmoved".
If there were multiple first causes they MUST be distinguished from one another, which means there must be something different in each from the other.
That means that they must have either something that the others don't or LACK something that the others do.
See where this is going right?

Thanks for answering my question. But I don't see why different equals unable to do the same thing, even if there are slight slight variations. But assuming what you say is correct, why must we assume only one thing is responsible for all that exist rather than multiple things,even if they all have their own set of limitations; be responsible for all that exist.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:No one said that the first cause/unmoved mover is responsible for ALL the exists, only for things that come into existence.

Such as? What are these things that didn’t always exist, yet never came into existence?

PaulSacramento wrote:You need to get your mind to understand pure actuality, a being ( not really a being but BEING) that is pure actuality with no potentiality can only exist as a single thing. There simply can't be multiples of them.

Actuality being that which brings things into existence, right? So why can’t there be more than one?

PaulSacramento wrote:I know this is advanced philosophy and metaphysics and I appreciate you trying to grasp what we are saying.

It isn't about being able to do the same thing, its about the un-caused cause and unmoved mover HAVING to be pure actuality or else that would potentially be another cause/mover that can "move" it and we are back to the same point.

If A is different than B then A and B must not be the same, which means one of them has more or less of something that makes it different,

Okay!

PaulSacramento wrote:which means they have potential to be something else or at least be ACTED upon by an outside force and us such, CAN'T be unmoved.

Wait; why is it because they are different, they both can’t be pure actuality? And just for the record, this is Aristotle philosophy; none of this stuff is actually backed up by modern science; right?