Uncreated Creator Argument

Ah yes special pleading. Our old friend returns.Of course the usual response to "obviously" refute the inherent contradiction of the uncreated creator is to invoke the concept of eternity and externality to time as we know it. As above.But even I who agree with you must agree that as a form of self rationalisation the claim that gods are eternal and not subject to time and have therefore always existed is marginally superior at least superficially to just saying "Everything must be created except my god".Although I agree it amounts to the same thing in the end the argument to get there is necesarily more complex. In the context of this thread I will pre-empt the theists by throwing it into the ring before they do. But Rahvin nothing is eternal!Except God Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ahhh DD - You have obviously not taken into account the relevant subjective evidence.But perhaps that is one for another thread.........

My apologies. My comment was something of an "in joke". There has recently been an extended discussion on exactly that topic.I agree with your comparison with the IPU 100%But there are others who do not. On the basis of something called "subjective evidence".See here for further details and feel free to take part in that discussion if you are so inclined. Message 5

On what basis do you conclude this? If you are going to insist on viewing this in terms of the first uncaused cause does it not make more sense to conclude that the one thing that you know exists (i.e. the universe) is in fact the first uncaused?Rather than going back that extra step to include something that we don't even know exists?

Counter-intuitive certainly.But is not the idea of quantum fluctuations, which I suppose is the closest directly evdenced analogous event, also equally counter intuitive?Is intuitiveness a reasonable standard by which to judge such things? I would suggest that this standard, such as it is, has been found wanting too many times to command any real validity at all.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

They are very counter-intuitive!!! Quantum Fluctuation Aha.....Now we come to the meat of the subject in my (admittedly limited) opinion...Is "something from nothing" a reasonable argument against "something" existing? Well no. Actually probably not.But the question as to what makes THE universe or, pre-universe, or possible universe or whatever it is the hell that we are talking about follow laws that allow for the spontaneous creation of THE universe that we now know to exist.......Well that is a possibly deeper question.Whether or not it is a valid question I am not sure. Is it more valid than asking what came before T=0?I dont know.But I agree with, what I believe to be the sentiment behind your question, that it is an interesting question worthy of consideration on philosophical grounds of some sort if nothing else.Why would we not conclude that the universe is ultimately the result of natural causes given all of the other things that we have attributed to non-natural causes have been refuted? Why is the universe "different"?But even I agree that this is a limited argument.The logicality of the universe is a fine question in my opinion. And whilst it ultimately, also in my opinion, offers little respite for the theist, it is a valid line of questioning given the evidence available.But even having said all that the Occam's Razor argument kind of opposes the idea of any supernatural being complex enough to create the physical universe. No?

Somewhere down the line we seem to inevitably find the need for either the "uncaused cause" or the thing that is deemed to "just be".We indisputably know (in the sense that we know anything without leaping down philosophical rabbit holes) that the universe "is". Without evidence of anything else existing why would we extrapolate back to conclude that there is an unevidenced something else that exists and "just is" so that we end up with an uncaused cause for our universe? Why take the extra step?If nothing else does parsimony not suggest that this unnecessary? The multiverse, colliding branes etc. etc. are all hypothetical possibilities derived from mathematical extrapolation. If there were any actual physical evidence to support these, or similar, hypotheses then the "allowance" of "just being" would presumably be shifted down the line to such evidenced phenomenon. But All evidence based argument is special pleading in the strict sense. The question that needs to be asked is how valid is the special pleading criteria that is being applied to seperate one concept from another.The accepted validity of objective evidence being required to support a particular concept and the fact that virtually every supernatural explanation ever proposed has been superceded by a natural explanation are both reasons to special plead on the basis of objective evidence and natural explanations.In most cases the validity of this "special pleading" is so accepted that we do not think of it in these terms. But when it comes to seperating any one concept from any other on the basis of evidence that is exactly what we are doing.I would suggest that objective evidence and natural explanations are valid "special pleading" criteria. I would also suggest that in 99% of situations you would agree with the validity of these criteria.Why not this one?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Fair enough. I am not sure that this is true.We know that the universe exists. This is evidenced. I am not talking causality. I am talking "just being". We have evidence that the universe "just is" unless we deem that the universe must be caused.On what basis do we conclude that the universe must be caused? We have evidence that the universe exists. That is not meaningless. In fact I would say it is quite important. Explanations of cause are meaningless regarding anything that "just is". Whether natural or otherwise. On this we seem to agree. If something "just is" then I am not sure what point A and point B are in this context.......? Are they not the same thing? Not at all. Take that which you know exists (i.e. the universe) and assume that this "just is" with no prior causal steps in the chain. That would be the parsomonious conclusion based on the known evidence (i.e. the evidence that the universe exists). The scientific method of testing hypotheses by means of objective evidence may well reach it's limit at the "just is" or "uncaused cause". I need to think about this some more but my initial reaction is that on this you are logically correct. Well I disagree. We do have evidence. We have evidence that the universe exists. To assume that the evidenced existence of the universe is caused by something unevidenced is obviously both unparsimonious and unevidenced.Thus the conclusion that the universe "just is" seems to be the most parsimonious and objectively evidenced conclusion.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think we agree on a lot more than is at first evident. I am not claiming that the uncaused nature of the universe is in itself evidenced. I am simply saying that it is the most parsimonious conclusion based on the totality of evidence that we do have. That is subtly different. If it is indeed the case that the universe "just is" then I think I agree. This cannot be evidenced in the way that you mean.That does not mean it cannot be the most parsimonious and evidenced answer available however. I think I am defaulting to that in exactly the way that you suggest. But is that default position a valid default position on the basis of the evidence available and parsimony? That is the question at hand.Something at some point down the chain has to be the "uncaused cause" or "just is". If not the universe then the cause of the universe. If not the cause of the universe then the cause of the cause of the universe etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.So something has to be "just is". We know that the universe exists. This is evidenced. We have absolutely no reason to think that there is any "uncaused cause" further down this potential chain of existence. Any claim that such a thing exists would be an unevidenced claim.Thus parsimony and the only evidence available suggest that the default (parsimonious and evidenced) conclusion must be that the universe "just is". Simply on the basis that there is no evidence on which to draw any other conclusion.I don't cliam it is a strong argument. It is just stronger than any claim of an "uncaused cause" argument that includes any being, entity or phenomenon that we have no evidenced reason to think exists further down the potential chain of cause and effect existence. And I think you are right. The problem is that whatever is the first "uncaused cause" or "just is" link in this potential chain of cause and effect will always have that "problem". The only thing we will in principle be able to establish about this first link in the chain is that it actually exists. It's origins will be logically uninvestigatable by scientific cause and effect means. If the nature of the universe is such that it is "uncaused" or "just is" then the notion of direct evidence of this in cause and effect terms would be both meaningless and pointless. So we seem to agree on this.But I also think that if something at some point must be the "uncaused cause" or "just is" element in a potential chain then taking the "something" that you know to exist on the basis of evidence (i.e. the universe in this case) to be that "just is" first element in the chain must be both the most "evidenced" and parsimonious answer.To suggest any causes further down the cause and effect chain of existence relies both on invoking the existence of the unevidenced and violating parsimony.Does that at least make sense? (even if you don't actually agree)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nah. You are being too harsh on yourself. The question you raise is a valid one.And whilst I also think that the answer I gave is logically and evidentially the valid answer I wholly concede that it is not a particularly satisfying or conclusive answer. I don't think anyone is saying that the universe has to be that "just is" first link in the causal chain. But something in that causal chain does have to "just be".Assuming that which we know "actually is" to be that "just is" first link in the causal chain is the only evidenced answer that there can be in a position of such overwhelming ignorance. To assume anything else is to invoke the existence of the unevidenced.If we find evidence for a multiverse, colliding branes, creator or whatever then by the same logic that would become the default "just is" first link in the causal chain until we find evidence of a causal precursor to that. Probably inevitable. The two things go hand in hand. Good luck!!!What exam is it?

That really, in essence, just about sums up the issue that you, I and Bluejay have been jointly discussing.I am not sure that there is much more that can be said on this topic.But hey this is EvC so we could have another 300 posts ahead of us while we explore these things further.......