frank317:


Uncaused cause still admits that God is caused. It simply means that God exists on his own, it does not mean he has no begining?
Since u are relying on science can u give a scientific prove of how God is uncaused? Where is outside the universe? Has science seen a place known as outside the universe? Is that where a community of Gods exists or wherw only one God lives?
I think the universe is the uncaused cause

This is English so please make even a little attempted to understand it. You are the very first person to ever say UNCAUSED CAUSE STILL ADMITS THAT GOD WAS CAUSED. I do not even know where to begin with you based on this crazy statement of yours.

The universe cannot be the uncaused cause because the universe has a beginning. Only an uncaused cause can be responsible for the beginning because infinite regression has been nullified.

vaxx:
i do not think it is all about Christianity only, even pagan, atheist everybody regardless of their faith and knowledge often justify the believes, wanting to ascertain or establish that their beliefs as real knowledge, not just that, and in doing so we nominate something else outside the premises as a justifier . we back it up or use it to support it. for instance Muslim back up the VALIDITY OF quran using ALLAH and that is their real knowledge status. for example , i believe the water is colorless, i justify it by looking at the water and i observed it is colorless.so if my observation is questioned, which means i have to also justify my observation( for example, how do i know that what i observed in the water is indeed colorless)and we repeat this infinitely, will it not become problem? in fact it will indeed turn to knowledge problem. read more on the concept called knowledge problem in philosophy online.

I am yet to see how uncaused cause is justified by anyone.

Gggg102:


The first cause could also be an unintelligent force. It could be like gravity but different. it might not be omnipotent, good/bad, requiring of worship.

The first cause doesn't need to be self aware or conscious/intelligent .. it only needs to be the first cause. it could also be multiple uncaused causes that resulted in the universe.
First cause isn't necessarily God/a God.

I think i love this reply... this should end the thread

darkchild64:

very good point,from what the op is saying what he terms "God" is the first cause that was UNCAUSED,but then why should we start assuming that "the first cause" is a being,going by the op the only thing we know about the first cause is that it was "the UNCAUSED CAUSE,the IMMUTABLE MOVER" is that enough for us to describe "the first cause" as a being that must be worshipped, which is obviously what the whole "God" idea is.
My opinion about this is simple,maybe there was a first cause,an UNCAUSED CAUSE as butterflyleo would say,which began everything hence you won't be entirely wrong if you say this "first cause" created the universe, however this "first cause" doesn't necessary have to be a being with human characteristics like Yahweh and Zeus,it doesn't have to have a nature,it doesn't have to be tangible,it doesn't have to be anything we know as GOD!!!!
the "first cause",is merely " the first cause" because that is the only thing we know about it and funny enough it is an assumption

The first uncaused cause is not an assumption because infinite regress is nullified.

The first cause is also intelligent because there was purpose behind the cause as we seen from the effect.

If there was no intelligence behind the first cause which produced an equally intelligent effect as a reaction then all we would have today would still be chaotic because unintelligence cannot produce order, harmony, purpose, etc. Also something inanimate cannot produce motion and direction since it has no power within itself to move itself by itself

Butterflyleo:


I have already tackled this earlier so would not want to waste my energy with typing a new response. I will simply quote my earlier comment.

what makes you think unintelligence can't birth intelligence?
it's saying simpler forms can't give rise to complex forms.

if a timeless inanimate object has been in motion for all eternity it can cause motion.

magnets and gravity are inanimate and they cause order.

also, since this uncaused cause is outside our universe, don't you think it won't be bound by the laws of this universe?

frank317:


Does this scientific law and arguement supports that there is a creator thatbis uncaused?

It supports an intelligence behind the origin of the universe. An intelligent uncaused cause since it already nullified an infinite regress regarding cause.

frank317:



I am yet to see how uncaused cause is justified by anyone.

It is justified by science since they nullified infinite regress regarding the origin of the universe.

Butterflyleo:


The first uncaused cause is not an assumption because infinite regress is nullified.

The first cause is also intelligent because there was purpose behind the cause as we seen from the effect.

If there was no intelligence behind the first cause which produced an equally intelligent effect as a reaction then all we would have today would still be chaotic because unintelligence cannot produce order, harmony, purpose, etc. Also something inanimate cannot produce motion and direction since it has no power within itself to move itself by itself

how do you know there is purpose behind the cause. the effect could be a coincidence that happened by chance.
For example;

There is a cup on the floor some metres away from me but I do not know this cup is close to me because I am blindfolded. I have a bag of about a million tennis balls with me. I throw this tennis balls randomly in the air one after the other. notice I don't have a target for the balls I just throw them in the air because that's what I do. I did not have the intention of throwing a ball inside the cup. However, one of the balls could land inside the cup since I have numerous balls I can throw over and over again. due to probability, a ball can land into the cup even without me having the intention of throwing the ball in the cup or even knowing the cup was there in the first place.


inanimate objects can produce motion. e. g magnets cause ferrous metals to move without being able to move.

a magnet(unitelligent) produces order around it when iron fillings are arranged round it.

Gggg102:


what makes you think unintelligence can't birth intelligence?
it's saying simpler forms can't give rise to complex forms.

if a timeless inanimate object has been in motion for all eternity it can cause motion.

magnets and gravity are inanimate and they cause order.

also, since this uncaused cause is outside our universe, don't you think it won't be bound by the laws of this universe?

This uncaused cause which is outside our known universe brought about the laws in our own universe.

Magnets do not exist on their own, they had an origin. Gravity also has a cause.

There is no INANIMATE OBJECT that can create motion by itself and in itself because it does not have the ability to do this by itself. Something caused its motion and then also something else caused the motion of what caused its motion but since we cannot go back with an infinite regression to the cause of this motion, we know that the cause of the first motion must have been itself uncaused and deliberately triggered the first motion.

Its like setting up dominos, and then pushing one down. That one causes a chain reaction with the rest and they all come falling down one after the other in a prearranged intelligent order because the first cause deliberately and intelligently wanted them to fall that way.

Your talk about simpler forms giving rise to complex forms is wrong and untrue and this is because you speak on the basis of evolution now and not the origin of life and based on this, many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this. This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.

So you can see that there is no intrinsic direction with natural selection so simpler cannot produce complex. Rather complexity can become simpler for sake of quicker spread.

Gggg102:



how do you know there is purpose behind the cause. the effect could be a coincidence that happened by chance.
For example;

There is a cup on the floor some metres away from me but I do not know this cup is close to me because I am blindfolded. I have a bag of about a million tennis balls with me. I throw this tennis balls randomly in the air one after the other. notice I don't have a target for the balls I just throw them in the air because that's what I do. I did not have the intention of throwing a ball inside the cup. However, one of the balls could land inside the cup since I have numerous balls I can throw over and over again. due to probability, a ball can land into the cup even without me having the intention of throwing the ball in the cup or even knowing the cup was there in the first place.


inanimate objects can produce motion. e. g magnets cause ferrous metals to move without being able to move.

a magnet(unitelligent) produces order around it when iron fillings are arranged round it.

You still do not get it. We are talking about the origins of the universe. Magnets did not just begin to exist. Even the composition of magnets did not just start to exist. Something made the compositions to exist before they came together to form a magnet which it in turn now interacts with another thing.

Your cup analogy is not supported by statistics or probability. How did you get the balls you are throwing? Why do you even go around throwing balls? Why would you just be throwing balls without an aim or without a target? How did you generate motion if you are an inanimate object? How did you even begin to exist before you began throwing balls? How did your balls begin to exist? What brought about this alleged cup in front of you and how did it also begin to exist?

There is always an origin. So probability refutes you

Butterflyleo:


It supports an intelligence behind the origin of the universe. An intelligent uncaused cause since it already nullified an infinite regress regarding cause.

Does it clearly state that this intelligence is one or a group or community of intelligent beings?

Where and how did it nullify infinite regress?

Butterflyleo:


This uncaused cause which is outside our known universe brought about the laws in our own universe.

Magnets do not exist on their own, they had an origin. Gravity also has a cause.

There is no INANIMATE OBJECT that can create motion by itself and in itself because it does not have the ability to do this by itself. Something caused its motion and then also something else caused the motion of what caused its motion but since we cannot go back with an infinite regression to the cause of this motion, we know that the cause of the first motion must have been itself uncaused and deliberately triggered the first motion.

Its like setting up dominos, and then pushing one down. That one causes a chain reaction with the rest and they all come falling down one after the other in a prearranged intelligent order because the first cause deliberately and intelligently wanted them to fall that way.

Your talk about simpler forms giving rise to complex forms is wrong and untrue and this is because you speak on the basis of evolution now and not the origin of life and based on this, many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this. This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.

So you can see that there is no intrinsic direction with natural selection so simpler cannot produce complex. Rather complexity can become simpler for sake of quicker spread.

the uncaused cause can be similar to a magnet outside our universe. except this uncaused cause can have no beginning. this uncaused 'magnet' does not have beginning or end. the 'magnet' outside our universe is the exception to the rule of everything having a cause.

the 'magnet' outside our universe can create motion despite being inanimate similar to the way our actual magnets do.
the outside universe 'magnet' is the source/trigger of all motion.


you say evolution has no intrinsic direction and organisms select between increasingly or decreasing complexity based on the environment.
which means it could go both ways complex or simpler.

then again you say simpler can't produce complex but complex can produce simpler. which means it can only go in one direction, from complex to simpler.

which one is it?

it can go from simpler to complex or vice versa.

it can only go from complex to simple.

Butterflyleo:


It is justified by science since they nullified infinite regress regarding the origin of the universe.

It nullifies infinite regress regarding the origin of the universe so therefore lets pull AN intelligent uncaused caused out if our hats?

frank317:


Does it clearly state that this intelligence is one or a group or community of intelligent beings?

Where and how did it nullify infinite regress?

That is a 50 year old question. Go and read and be up to speed. Infinite regression is a scientific taboo

Gggg102:


the uncaused cause can be similar to a magnet outside our universe. except this uncaused cause can have no beginning. this uncaused 'magnet' does not have beginning or end. the 'magnet' outside our universe is the exception to the rule of everything having a cause.

the 'magnet' outside our universe can create motion despite being inanimate similar to the way our actual magnets do.
the outside universe 'magnet' is the source/trigger of all motion.


you say evolution has no intrinsic direction and organisms select between increasingly or decreasing complexity based on the environment.
which means it could go both ways complex or simpler.

then again you say simpler can't produce complex but complex can produce simpler. which means it can only go in one direction, from complex to simpler.

which one is it?

it can go from simpler to complex or vice versa.

it can only go from complex to simple.

An inanimate object does not have any power in itself to CREATE motion. A magnet itself as it were needs to have its components brought together and even that cannot happen randomly.

For any magnet to cause motion then it also needs to have another object which responds to its magnetic pull or push and this then makes the odd of probability even slimer because it would mean that not only the magnet would need to be somehow randomly put together but the reactor to the magnet must also be somehow randomly put together and then there would be the issue of how possible it was for them to come together within the vastness of our universe which would be like 2 grains of sand coming together on planet earth while being the only 2 grains of sand here.

The simpler form being spoken about is one which was already derived from complexity and based on this, cannot revert due to its lack of intrinsic direction.

frank317:


It nullifies infinite regress regarding the origin of the universe so therefore lets pull AN intelligent uncaused caused out if our hats?

Yes because the end purpose we see is an intelligent one so this means the origin was also intelligent as in intelligence cannot birth intelligence.

Also infinite regression being nullified automatically accepts an uncaused cause as the origin.

Butterflyleo:


Yes because the end purpose we see is an intelligent one so this means the origin was also intelligent as in intelligence cannot birth intelligence.

Also infinite regression being nullified automatically accepts an uncaused cause as the origin.

an infinite regression being nullified also automatically leads to a whole lot of possibilities:

- it could accept an uncaused cause as the origin
- it could accept uncaused causes as the origin
- it could accept that the universe is an uncaused cause

it could accept a whole lot of things. At the end of the day we can just assume and assume and still be wrong.

does the fact that science nullifies an infinite regression suggest that whatever caused the universe is one? does it suggest where the 'outside' the universe is? does it suggest how this uncaused cause (if there is one) created the universe? what if the uncaused caused has suddenly stopped to exist?

lastly how does the existence of an uncaused cause suggest we should worship it.

dont get me wrong, ur ASSUMPTION of an uncaused cause could be right, but it is not a fact and it lack so many details. But why it is important to you that is remains a fact is what i dont understand.

Butterflyleo:


You still do not get it. We are talking about the origins of the universe. Magnets did not just begin to exist. Even the composition of magnets did not just start to exist. Something made the compositions to exist before they came together to form a magnet which it in turn now interacts with another thing.

Your cup analogy is not supported by statistics or probability. How did you get the balls you are throwing? Why do you even go around throwing balls? Why would you just be throwing balls without an aim or without a target? How did you generate motion if you are an inanimate object? How did you even begin to exist before you began throwing balls? How did your balls begin to exist? What brought about this alleged cup in front of you and how did it also begin to exist?

There is always an origin. So probability refutes you

I am using magnets metaphorically to represent the uncaused cause.
the 'magnet' has always been in existence. it had no beginning nor end. it is the uncaused cause.

1. anything that began to exist was caused.
2. the universe began to exist.
3. the universe was caused.
this cause is what I call the 'outside universe magnet'.
it does not need a cause because infinite regression is impossible. it is the first cause. nothing is required for it to exist because it always is.

the balls are a part of me. they've always been. they are uncaused.

I go around throwing balls because that's what I do. magnets don't have a reason to attract iron but that's what they do.

I throw the balls without a target because that's what I do. magnets don't have targets they just create a field. the field is always round a magnet regardless of whether any iron is there or not. it's what they do. high voltage electricity does not have a target they just do what they do. if you touch the wire, you could die. was it targeting you? no it has been doing what it does.


I being inanimate generate motion because that's what I do. the same way a magnet can generate motion because that's what they do. so the first cause, the 'outside universe magnet ' generates motion because that's what they do.

I and my balls never began to exist. we were uncaused. the first cause. we've always been there. like the 'outside universe magnet '. it is the exception to the everything has a cause rule.

my balls are my properties like a magnetic field. they've always been with me.

the cup represents the chance of me doing what I do causing the universe. the chance is there that if I do what I do long enough,y ball will land in the cup causing existence.

frank317:


an infinite regression being nullified also automatically leads to a whole lot of possibilities:

- it could accept an uncaused cause as the origin
- it could accept uncaused causes as the origin
- it could accept that the universe is an uncaused cause

it could accept a whole lot of things. At the end of the day we can just assume and assume and still be wrong.

does the fact that science nullifies an infinite regression suggest that whatever caused the universe is one? does it suggest where the 'outside' the universe is? does it suggest how this uncaused cause (if there is one) created the universe? what if the uncaused caused has suddenly stopped to exist?

lastly how does the existence of an uncaused cause suggest we should worship it.

dont get me wrong, ur ASSUMPTION of an uncaused cause could be right, but it is not a fact and it lack so many details. But why it is important to you that is remains a fact is what i dont understand.

I only saw one thing in all you wrote and that has also been scientifically nullified. That is that you assume the universe is eternal. This was why I told you that your position is 50yrs old and has been nullified 50yrs ago also.

The universe is not eternal. An uncaused cause is what is said to be eternal and the universe has a beginning.

Gggg102:


I am using magnets metaphorically to represent the uncaused cause.
the 'magnet' has always been in existence. it had no beginning nor end. it is the uncaused cause.

1. anything that began to exist was caused.
2. the universe began to exist.
3. the universe was caused.
this cause is what I call the 'outside universe magnet'.
it does not need a cause because infinite regression is impossible. it is the first cause. nothing is required for it to exist because it always is.

the balls are a part of me. they've always been. they are uncaused.

I go around throwing balls because that's what I do. magnets don't have a reason to attract iron but that's what they do.

I throw the balls without a target because that's what I do. magnets don't have targets they just create a field. the field is always round a magnet regardless of whether any iron is there or not. it's what they do. high voltage electricity does not have a target they just do what they do. if you touch the wire, you could die. was it targeting you? no it has been doing what it does.


I being inanimate generate motion because that's what I do. the same way a magnet can generate motion because that's what they do. so the first cause, the 'outside universe magnet ' generates motion because that's what they do.

I and my balls never began to exist. we were uncaused. the first cause. we've always been there. like the 'outside universe magnet '. it is the exception to the everything has a cause rule.

my balls are my properties like a magnetic field. they've always been with me.

the cup represents the chance of me doing what I do causing the universe. the chance is there that if I do what I do long enough,y ball will land in the cup causing existence.

Well I.am talking about God and not a metaphorical magnet that is unintelligent.

Let me explain to you. You cannot be a metaphorical magnet who throws balls around for no reason. What made you even begin throwing balls?

1) you are a magnet

2) your throw balls around

Those are identity and function. You as the metaphorical magnet are unintelligent and so is your cup. Your cup can only catch your ball without a reaction. You forget that our universe is full of chemicals and gasses which react and for some reason these gasses somehow react with a foreseeable outcome.

Example is the sun and how its gasses react to cause life to be aided on the earth even without it being a part of the earth and being extremely far from the earth. How this was a product of chance is unimaginable.

Was the sun self aware or intelligent to make itself this way so it would be beneficial to the only habitable planet as we know it?

Butterflyleo:


An inanimate object does not have any power in itself to CREATE motion. A magnet itself as it were needs to have its components brought together and even that cannot happen randomly.

For any magnet to cause motion then it also needs to have another object which responds to its magnetic pull or push and this then makes the odd of probability even slimer because it would mean that not only the magnet would need to be somehow randomly put together but the reactor to the magnet must also be somehow randomly put together and then there would be t issue of how possible it was for them to come together within the vastness of our universe which would be like 2 grains of sand coming together on planet earth while being the only 2 grains of sand here.

The simpler form being spoken about is one which was already derived from complexity and based on this, cannot revert due to its lack of intrinsic direction.

1. don't magnets cause motion by themselves?
what components? the magnet is already a magnet.

2. the 'outside universe magnet' does not need to be brought together. it always is. it is the first cause and the uncaused cause.

3. the object which the 'outside universe magnet' causes to move could be part of that 'outside universe magnet'/this 'outside universe magnet' could be a form of perpetual motion system or there could be numerous uncaused causes that interact to give our universe. they don't need to be put together because they always are. and they exist outside our universe so there is nothing like time. this 'outside universe magnet' is timeless.

also, the laws of our universe probably don't apply outside our universe so we shouldn't limit the 'outside earth magnet' by our universal laws.

Also you need to read this and draw a parallel with how the sun not only aids our planet but also aids us as individuals despite being extremely far from us.

Why would the sun even bother?

Sleep is regulated by two body systems: sleep/wake homeostasis and the circadian biological clock .

When we have been awake for a long period of time, sleep/wake homeostasis tells us that a need for sleep is accumulating and that it is time to sleep. It also helps us maintain enough sleep throughout the night to make up for the hours of being awake.
Our internal circadian biological clocks, on the other hand, regulate the timing of periods of sleepiness and wakefulness throughout the day.
The circadian biological clock is controlled by a part of the brain called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN), a group of cells in the hypothalamus that respond to light and dark signals. From the optic nerve of the eye, light travels to the SCN, signaling the internal clock that it is time to be awake. The SCN signals to other parts of the brain that control hormones, body temperature and other functions that play a role in making us feel sleepy or awake.

In the mornings, with exposure to light, the SCN sends signals to raise body temperature and produce hormones like cortisol. The SCN also responds to light by delaying the release of other hormones like melatonin, which is associated with sleep onset and is produced when the eyes signal to the SCN that it is dark. Melatonin levels rise in the evening and stay elevated throughout the night, promoting sleep

There is intelligence behind the origins of the universe and the existence of humanity

Butterflyleo:


Well I.am talking about God and not a metaphorical magnet that is unintelligent.

Let me explain to you. You cannot be a metaphorical magnet who throws balls around for no reason. What made you even begin throwing balls?

1) you are a magnet

2) your throw balls around

Those are identity and function. You as the metaphorical magnet are unintelligent and so is your cup. Your cup can only catch your ball without a reaction. You forget that our universe is full of chemicals and gasses which react and for some reason these gasses somehow react with a foreseeable outcome.

Example is the sun and how its gasses react to cause life to be aided on the earth even without it being a part of the earth and being extremely far from the earth. How this was a product of chance is unimaginable.

Was the sun self aware or intelligent to make itself this way so it would be beneficial to the only habitable planet as we know it?

well I am talking about the metaphorical magnet which is the first cause.

what made me begin to throw balls?, it's just what I do. you are asking what caused the first cause.

the cup catching the ball is the formation of the universe as we know it. the cup is the set of conditions to be fulfilled to create our universe. the ball entering the cup is the 'magnet' meeting these specific conditions.

the sun is a result of the ball entering the cup.

it might seem unimaginable because we are limited by this universe. the probability of the conditions being met is so negligible but since there is still a probability, it is then possible especially when I throw the balls over and over again in a timeless period a ball is bound to enter the cup eventually.

Gggg102:



well I am talking about the metaphorical magnet which is the first cause.

what made me begin to throw balls?, it's just what I do. you are asking what caused the first cause.

the cup catching the ball is the formation of the universe as we know it. the cup is the set of conditions to be fulfilled to create our universe. the ball entering the cup is the 'magnet' meeting these specific conditions.

the sun is a result of the ball entering the cup.

it might seem unimaginable because we are limited by this universe. the probability of the conditions being met is so negligible but since there is still a probability, it is then possible especially when I throw the balls over and over again in a timeless period a ball is bound to enter the cup eventually.

There is no such thing as a timeless period because there was a beginning to the effect.

That puts an end to your metaphorical jargon

Butterflyleo:


There is no such thing as a timeless period because there was a beginning to the effect.

That puts an end to your metaphorical jargon

does time exist outside the universe?

Gggg102:


does time exist outside the universe?

But 1million balls being thrown shows a time frame.

And you were referring to an effect and not the cause when you said that. So like I said, that puts an end to your "timeless" jargon

Butterflyleo:


But 1million balls being thrown shows a time frame.

And you were referring to an effect and not the cause when you said that. So like I said, that puts an end to your "timeless" jargon

I never gave a time frame for throwing the balls, I only said the balls were thrown. and the cause is the throwing of the balls.

Gggg102:



I never gave a time frame for throwing the balls, I only said the balls were thrown. and the cause is the throwing of the balls.

Ogbeni stop confusing yourself. The balls being thrown is the effect and as far as science is concerned, this effect has a beginning. Your balls are a time frame.

The cause is the metaphorical magnet who just goes around throwing balls as you claimed.

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni stop confusing yourself. The balls being thrown is the effect and as far as science is concerned, this effect has a beginning. Your balls are a time frame.

The cause is the metaphorical magnet who just goes around throwing balls as you claimed.

the magnet throwing the ball is the cause.

the ball landing in the cup or wherever is the effect.

there is no time frame. the magnet always is throwing balls for eternity. no beginning and no end.

frank317:



I am yet to see how uncaused cause is justified by anyone.

just like how infinite regress is a position of ignorance, the hypothetical stand on uncause cause is a knowledge base position.

Gggg102:


the magnet throwing the ball is the cause.

the ball landing in the cup or wherever is the effect.

there is no time frame. the magnet always is throwing balls for eternity. no beginning and no end.

Ogbeni, THROWING from a magnet is an effect

How did the magnet throw anything from itself when nothing CAUSED the throwing?

The effect has a time frame which is traceable. You are now confusing yourself

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni, THROWING from a magnet is an effect

How did the magnet throw anything from itself when nothing CAUSED the throwing?

The effect has a time frame which is traceable. You are now confusing yourself

an effect of what?


the magnet caused the throwing.

the throwing is an act of the magnet.

the magnet= cause

the throwing/creating = act

the balls landing in the cup/universe = effect.