This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

An argument against 'First Cause' flavor monotheism

#1DarkContractorPosted 10/16/2013 2:57:08 PM
here's an interesting idea, I think. It's an argument I came up with the other day, if this has been expressed before please link me.

1. God is a necessarily existing uncaused causer.(basically assuming the cosmological argument)
2. Time cannot exist before a first cause. Time itself is a property of matter; time does not exist in its own right. (I'm not going for the usual God can't make decisions without time to do so in)
3. There is no limit to the 'resources' of the existence of the uncaused cause. As in, whatever a first cause may be, there's no possible universe in which there wasn't enough of x to make the first cause as that would imply the first cause descended from something else.
4. If the object 'God' necessarily and automatically exists without any conditions limiting it, this predicts an infinite amount of Gods. If God #1 necessarily exists, then so will God #2 as they share all the same properties. There is no property such as "Being the only one."this is not a property in itself the way one of the omniqualities is but is instead an observation based on one object's relationship to another. Any restriction implies that the uncaused cause actually did have a cause, as a restriction implies a pre-existing limit.
5. Without time, a God cannot arrange for himself to be the only one. An infinite amount of Gods must eternally exist. For one God to be able to prevent the others mean there was a time in which only h existed and arranged for the others to not exist.

I'm having trouble figuring out the proper way to word everything, but thoughts?
#2kozlo100Posted 10/16/2013 3:11:58 PM
I'm sketchy on 2, but I see your purpose for it so I'll roll with it, but I think I'd probably jump ship there in other circumstances.

I'm also shaky on 4, but that might be down to wording. I'm not seeing how having the property of being the only one necessitates having a cause.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#3Polish_CrusaderPosted 10/16/2013 3:24:13 PM
Is this another atheist gimmick term or something?

Its like every month im hearing a new gimmick or "ism" that is suppose to describe what i believe and what not.
---
"Being a Christian isn't for sissies.It takes a real man to live for God If you really want to live right these days, you gotta be tough."-Johnny Cash
#4mrplainswalkerPosted 10/16/2013 3:24:34 PM
Number 2 needs to be reworded in some way. Maybe that time is either a property of existing things and therefore cannot preexist them or that time itself is its own entity and therefore also requires a cause.

You completely lose me on number 4. I don't know what you're getting at.

If the object 'God' necessarily and automatically exists without any conditions limiting it, this predicts an infinite amount of Gods.

How do you get there? Why would there be an infinite amount?
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#5mrplainswalkerPosted 10/16/2013 3:26:14 PM
Polish_Crusader posted...
Is this another atheist gimmick term or something?

Its like every month im hearing a new gimmick or "ism" that is suppose to describe what i believe and what not.


What are you talking about? The only "ism" in this topic is monotheism, which is certainly not a gimmick.
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#6DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 10/16/2013 3:30:38 PM
mrplainswalker posted...
Polish_Crusader posted...
Is this another atheist gimmick term or something?

Its like every month im hearing a new gimmick or "ism" that is suppose to describe what i believe and what not.


What are you talking about? The only "ism" in this topic is monotheism, which is certainly not a gimmick.


he thinks i use words that have the suffix 'ism' as a way of trying to sound smart. i dont if he thinks thats supposed to be a big word (or in this case, syllable). though its been awhile since he accused me of it
#7DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 10/16/2013 3:46:18 PM
kozlo100 posted...
I'm sketchy on 2, but I see your purpose for it so I'll roll with it, but I think I'd probably jump ship there in other circumstances.

I'm also shaky on 4, but that might be down to wording. I'm not seeing how having the property of being the only one necessitates having a cause.



my point with #2 is basically if you have time before the first cause you're basically going for the strawman version of the naturalist's big bang that cosmological argumentation uses. Ex nihilio besides a time first cause-poof-God. Not to mention, again, time has been empirically observed to be a property of particles in itself.

with #4, i think it's important to draw out the distinction again that 'only being one' is not an intrinsic property. here's a good example: I am DarkContractor. this username is a trait that is actually mine; it belongs directly to me and is intrinsically my property. Once you begin to not talk about a me that is not DarkContractor you are no longer talking about me (ok I mean my un doesnt have to be DC but you get my point :P). where as if I'm the only person named DarkContractor, that's not my actual property. that's rather an observation of reality. I really wish I could figure out how to word that better.

Now, with that in mind, with a first cause 'God' you're basically saying God, with all his properties necessarily exists. Why would it stop at one? Rather, you're calling this object necessarily existing, and definitely existing therefore when you talk about a God that doesn't exist you're no longer talking about an unncessarily existing one. think ontological argument except by assuming cosmological argument we're talking about a modal where it's definitely possible for God to exist and he definitely does rather than simply defining it as necessary.
#8DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 10/16/2013 3:48:03 PM
also, when i ran this by TRJ last night we blew up our minds with the question "if two omnipotent Gods got in a fight who would win?"
#9kozlo100Posted 10/16/2013 3:54:44 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Not to mention, again, time has been empirically observed to be a property of particles in itself.


Got a source on that? This isn't something I've heard before, and it's a subject I'm interested in.

I'll have to think more about 4. I'm still not sure I'm getting you, and it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'll try to puzzle out why and get back to you.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#10kozlo100Posted 10/16/2013 3:59:12 PM
DarkContractor posted...
also, when i ran this by TRJ last night we blew up our minds with the question "if two omnipotent Gods got in a fight who would win?"


Seems like that would get paradoxical in the rock problem kind of way pretty quick. Where did you guys end up going with that one?
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.