If you think there is a flaw there, can you figure it out? You have to have more than suspicions! — Philosophim

Other than a Dipolar God, not sure... I'm stumped

Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint! — Philosophim

That multiverse is logically possible?

Other than a Dipolar God, not sure... I'm stumped — 3017amen

Fair enough. I can say at this point that those points are not where I found the flaw.

Take that and bring it into the argument above. And that's the next hint!
— Philosophim

That multiverse is logically possible? — 3017amen

Yes, multiverse theory is very possible at this point. Our universe would be a part of it regardless.
Since we do not know the first cause, of our universe, we're thinking about all the possibilities that it could have been, given the logical conclusion of what a first cause would entail.

Take a look again at the logic where A0 could equal B1 in another possible universe. Now think about what my definition of a God is. Then think about what my definition for a specific universe is. Have I missed something?

Take a look again at the logic where A0 could equal B1 in another possible universe. Now think about what my definition of a God is. Then think about what my definition for a specific universe is. Have I missed something? — Philosophim

Yes, conscious existence.

Yes, conscious existence. — 3017amen

I don't want to say your wrong, but solution is going to be more than a one line answer. I mention a God is a "Being" which could be conscious or non-conscious of its decisions.

I don't believe there's anything obviously wrong that I did in setting up the precepts of a God. But is there anything wrong or unfair that I did in setting up the precepts of a "specific universe"?

don't want to say your wrong, but solution is going to be more than a one line answer. I mention a God is a "Being" which could be conscious or non-conscious of its decisions. — Philosophim

Are you sure? I mean it sounds like you are arguing cosmological existence by way of logical necessity, no?

As long as we insist on identifying understanding with rational explanation familiar to science (mathematics and empiricism) we will inevitably end up with turtle trouble; either an infinite regress, or a mysterious self explaining super turtle, or an unexplained string of turtles.

Could it be that our understanding of existence has no explanation in the usual sense? And only that an understanding of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? Could there be other possible worlds having a different set of rational thought an explanation (multiverse)?

And so your only alternative is something like Spinoza's logical necessity. But that doesn't unpack or solve one of the main concerns of cosmology; time, change, contingency and eternity associated with an unchanging Being. A Being who exists outside of time who creates time itself.

Therefore, based on your formula/suggestions that there is a causational Being who exists out of logical necessity (the explanation for itself is only contained within itself), then I would have to conclude that Being and consciousness is also a logical necessity. And that seems to lead to, or suggest, that some form of a cosmological anthropic theory should be part of your explanation... .

I'm not saying your theory is wrong, it's just that it doesn't really speak to the why's of existence. Unless you're on a fishing expedition, the fact that you recognize your formula is flawed or incomplete speaks for itself. As such, the foregoing is my basic take away from your OP. You seem to be arguing logical necessity.

(It's kind of like saying: " This statement is false" or "there exists at least one true proposition".) I'm okay with logical necessity, it's just that it lacks meaning and ultimate explanation.

Are you sure? I mean it sounds like you are arguing cosmological existence by way of logical necessity, no? — 3017amen

Hm, I am not arguing cosmological existence by necessity. We already know we live in a universe.

What I am arguing is that our universe had at least one first cause. This argument does not address anything outside of our present universe. It does not address anything in regards to time. If you want to wonder if there is time before a first cause, it can be fun to think on, but is irrelevant to the argument. A first cause has no contingency. A first cause might be eternal, or it might not.

The first step is the realization that if we do not know what the first cause is, but we realize that there are no rules on a first cause, that it could have been anything. There are no rules or restrictions on what can be a first cause. If there were, we would ask, "What is causing the first cause to be restricted?" Ergo, we're not really talking about a first cause.

This is truly the logical necessity. Feel free to try and break it, but I nor anyone I have spoken with has been able to. I didn't point this out in the beginning, because I was hoping someone would.

We can conclude from this that if a first cause could be anything, and we do not know what the first cause is, what are the possibilities? They are of course, infinite. Fortunately, we know that our universe exists. At some point there was a first cause of our universe. First, I stated, "Lets use the big bang as the first cause". Doesn't matter if it is or not, the point is we can imagine a first cause that does not require a being as a creator. I conclude however, that there is only one of our universe, and that if there is any alteration in the universe after the big bang (the first cause) from our own, it is actually a different universe.

The first cause could also be a "God". But what is a God? It is simply a being that can create our universe in its identical form. This is a minimum requirement. But of course its also possible a first cause that is a being could have formed with higher than the minimum requirement. In fact, infinitely so.

In the end, this means that for any one universe has a first cause which is not a God, there are an infinite number of possible first causes that would have been Gods instead.

The logic problem is self-contained within the premises of the argument, and will require no outside sources. Somewhere there is a flaw. I've given a few hints.

1. Go back to the formula I gave you to really understand what a first cause entails, and what I mean by a God being a first cause to the big bang, which itself is one possibility of a first cause.

2. Make sure you understand and accept the logic of what it means to be a first cause in the argument. Feel free to zone out for ten minutes or so as your mind explodes with the possibilities. One of the joys of philosophy!

3. Come back to the point in which I narrow those possibilities into two camps. See how I identify a God. See how I identity a universe. See if the relation between the two is fair.

You're doing VERY well by the way. This is not written anywhere else. You have never heard of these concepts before. I hope above all that it is fun and triggers that philosophical itch to tackle something in a new way!

In what way is that constructive?! — DingoJones

Please don't take it personally, it's not about you at all. The thing is, I'm pushing 70, an old man, doing this very thing for over 20 years, almost daily. I've read everything you're saying, almost literally word for word, about 72 billion times. When I become bored, I get grouchy, and then it's down hill from there. Trying to learn to let it go before that happens.

There is a limitless supply of people you can yell at on the Internuts. :-) I'm not denying you anything you can't easily find immediately in a million other places. Smile and be happy!

I'm not going to consider your posts as having any value to the topic. — Philosophim

Ok, no problem. You've defined the topic narrowly enough so that you can do the logic dance you know how to do. No problem. I'm happy to bow out, and I'm sure others will play the game you wish to play.

FYI, I'm not really challenging you personally so much as I am the philosophy profession at large. If they knew what they were doing, you'd already know everything I'm saying and have plenty to contribute to it.

FYI, I'm not really challenging you personally so much as I am the philosophy profession at large. If they knew what they were doing, you'd already know everything I'm saying and have plenty to contribute to it. — Hippyhead

HippyHead, if you want to write a forum post on attacking philosophy at large, it would probably be a great discussion I would enjoy. I just don't want to distract from what I'm posting here, which you seem to understand. No offense taken, we'll talk on another topic another time. =)

None of that has to do with the topic at hand. I didnt complain about it being personal, or that you were grouchy.
You havent said anything of substance on the topic at hand, nor made an argument. Youve made some assertions and assumptions but no argument. You want to claim you’ve heard everything im saying word for word 72 billion times, yet all of your comments were directed not at what I said but rather at this phantom internet atheist philosophy monster youre determined to battle. Not much I can do with that...you clearly aren’t interested in discussion (why would you right? You already know everything I have to say on the matter lol) and when your rhetoric doesnt land (cuz its incoherent) you get “grouchy” and take your ball and go home. Now your back, trying to...i dont know what, in that last post.
There is another old fart who thinks he knows everything, and forgotten how to learn and listen on this forum, Frank Apisa. Maybe you guys can get together to yell into the wind together and pat yourselves on the back.
Smile and be happy Hippyhead.

I didnt complain about it being personal, or that you were grouchy. — DingoJones

Correct. And I'm leaving before I get grouchy. You can be grouchy on your own if you want, that's up to you. :-)

I just don't want to distract from what I'm posting here, which you seem to understand. No offense taken, we'll talk on another topic another time. =) — Philosophim

Ok, sounds good!

Thank you Gnomon for participating! You spent a good deal of time on your post, and will attempt to honor you in kind. We may come into disagreement at point, but know that it is from a place of respect. — Philosophim

I suspect that our god models may have a lot in common. The main difference may lie in our starting points. My worldview and god-model are based on my layman's non-academic non-rigorous, yet science-based, Enformationism thesis, not on a critical-logical-philosophical Ontology. So our vocabulary, and some assumptions, may be different, even though we arrive at similar conclusions about the existence and characteristics of a non-empirical metaphysical Ultimate Cause of our imperfect, but progressing, world.

I'm simply sharing some of my own ideas on a topic that still fascinates me, long after I lost my faith in the Bible-God of my upbringing. On this forum, I know better than to expect to win any Yes or No arguments about un-provable opinions or beliefs. Humans have been debating such Transcendent notions since the first creatures looked-up at the sky and began to wonder "why?"

At this point, I'm not assuming there is a creator, or there is not a creator. — Philosophim

I too, tried to begin with a blank slate, without any presumptions. And to simply follow the available scientific & philosophical evidence where it led. Unfortunately, our conclusion that logically there must be an uncaused First Cause for this world's sequence of secondary causes is open to question. Some Cosmologists argue that the "ultimate explanation" for our temporal Natural world is an "infinite regress" of Natural worlds (Multiverses). That non-empirical, but reasonable-sounding, possibility allows them to avoid any notions of a Supernatural Cause or Creator. Yet, they may still be uncomfortable with the necessity for Infinities beyond our space-time world.

"Theists and atheists agree there must be some ultimate explanation, some end to the infinite regress. But they disagree over which properties this 'ultimate being' must have".
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

what you need to disprove — Philosophim

Atheists "disprove" your assertion of a First Cause for our Natural world, by asserting that automatic impersonal random Evolution itself could be a self-existent eternal Cause --- like gravity "it just is". This unfounded presumption gets around the need to debate any miraculous interventions into the progression of the world. But my god-model also accepts Evolution, and denies the need for divine meddling with the ongoing process.

A is not defined by anything else, and thus can only be understood as its existence, not by something that is not its existence. — Philosophim

I suspect that some Multiverse proponents would agree with your logic, but still disagree with your implication that the First Cause has no causal precedent.

If you imply there is a reason, you imply something BEHIND that first cause. — Philosophim

I was merely noting what you had already implied : that an ultimate First Cause would not "pop into existence", since it continually exists forever. The answer to a "why" question must be a reason or intention, not necessarily a "something". But in the absence of a divine revelation, we may have to accept a mere place-holder : a loosely-defined G*D Concept.

only one "Why" answer — Gnomon
Until you show the above logic as incorrect, this cannot be claimed. — Philosophim

I have no need to refute your impeccable logic. I'll simple define the Causal Creator of our world, whether a> God or b> Multiverse, as the one-&-only answer to why the creation exists. I'm not aware of any other viable answers (e.g super-aliens).

A God Concept : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page34.html

c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. — Gnomon
No, if it is a first cause, it did not cause itself. It was not, then it was. If it has the power of eternal self-existence, as a first cause, it does, because it does. — Philosophim

That's what I said. "Self-creation" is a circular oxymoron notion, like "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". "Self-existence", though, is a viable characteristic of a hypothetical entity that can create new Worlds & Beings, rather than just cause new forms of pre-existing things. Other self-existent beings could exist, but if they are independent minded, like the quarreling Pantheon of Olympus, it would be more like Chaos than Cosmos.
BEING, per se, could be inert immobile existence, equivalent to nothingness. But "Creative BEING" would be able to use its inherent power of existence to cause other beings to exist. No one can deny that our existence implies the "power to be", and the sudden appearance of our world from who-knows-where is impossible without the prior Potential for existence. So I'm simply defining an eternal Law of Being that must logically cause & create all other laws, principles, and things in existence.

Self-existent : existing independently of other beings or causes.

As long as you understand the underlying concept that at any point of creative power, we can imagine a greater creative power — Philosophim

No. That is the understanding of Atheists who challenge Theists with "who created the creator?" But the "Creative Potential" I have in mind is the Power to Exist, that I call "BEING", for short. There could be no space-time limit on an Infinite Pool of Possibilities. You could imagine that PoP as the eternal law of statistics, governing what is possible in Enfernity (Infinity-Eternity), and what is probable in space-time.

God definition : "a being than which no greater can be conceived" ___Anselm

. . . . the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential — Gnomon
I don't think this is logical. . . . the infinitely powerful God is only one of an infinite other possible gods. — Philosophim

I was talking about the infinite Potential (possible creations) of a single omnipotent deity, not a sequence of Creator Gods all-the-way-down. The First Cause (Agent) is also the Final Cause (Design) --- all-in-one.

I hope I misunderstood you. Can the set of [Infinity] logically or mathematically contain an infinite array of [Infinite] sets? [[[[[[[[Infinity]]]]]]] Or were you allowing for a hypothetical infinite regress of First Causes, where each new First Cause would possess some fraction of Total Power? Or did you have in mind something like the Hindu notion of an infinity of universes cycling forever. Anyway, my puny brain can't deal with such mind-boggline un-definable concepts, so I simply use the shorthand of a single graphic symbol : Ꝏ.

13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being . . . An infinite number of [possible] beings — Philosophim

For Atheists, that might be true. But for my thesis, a multiplicity of gods is no better, no more powerful, than Creation by Random Accident. And that's not a God by my definition. It's statistical Chance. So, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Unitary Creative Cause, instead of waiting for infinite rolls of the dice. :joke:

As I am simple minded by nature, I must do certain things that allow me to comprehend the subject in order to contribute to the conversation. In that effort, I will try not to contradict or criticize your presentation.

Firstly, I will use the term Creator instead of God, because God has too many connotations that can confuse the discussion for me.

I also substitute Creation for Existence, because there are too many arguments about the properties of Existence that make it interfere with the subject.

It is clear to most that a Creator has a single property of "the ability to create" and Creation is simply "that which is created".

By framing it this way, I conclude that the concepts most relevant to the discussion are Agency and Constraint. With Agency being defined as the power to effect. Constraint, therefore, is anything that limits Agency.

Our first Constraints are those imposed by our creation. At birth, we have minimum Agency and gain Agency as life progresses. Agency is only the power to effect and does not imply any necessity to act. Life is really only about the exercise of Agency, and eliminating constraints.

For me, this is the most objective way to approach the subject. To seek a "first cause" is really about determining who or what it is that possesses maximum Agency. The obvious answer would have to be the Creator. The Creator is the one who determines all the attributes that his Creation has. Anyone else has only the ability to interpret the attributes, and act on them in accordance with their own Agency.

Maximum Agency implies fewest Constraints. Ultimately then, we are looking for a being with no Constraints. What do we know that can effect all of existence and even create new existences? Something that exhibits the power of a God?

I have to believe we are referring to Time. And therefore I have to say its probability of existing is 100%

But then, that is just my view.

I am not arguing cosmological existence by necessity. We already know we live in a universe. — Philosophim

I would strongly urge you to google logical necessity. You have accepted your logically necessary universe, just just like have accepted your logically necessary first cause. It's as if you've presented a straw man argument.

Look at your items 4 through 9 again. The terms, among others, you repeatedly use to explain existence are 'just is' and 'it simply exists that way' in those explanations.

Again, unless you can explain otherwise, I'm ok with logical necessity. I'm ok with a Dipolar God who exists outside of time (timeless/eternity--like light energy) and creates temporal time. A God who determines his own existence in both an indeterminant and determinant world. Breaking logical rules of things like LEM is perfectly fine. After all, our conscious existence does the same.

I go back to my gut reaction, you're arguing logical possibility and logical necessity. Otherwise, as you said, if the first cause itself can have any and all possible or conceivable attributes, please share what that means or translates to, in your theory.

You have accepted your logically necessary universe, just just like have accepted your logically necessary first cause. It's as if you've presented a straw man argument. — 3017amen

Ok, we might just be at a semantics or context of use difference here. I'll try to cover what I think you're saying.

To be clear on what is logically necessary.

1. Our universe exists. We wouldn't be chatting otherwise! =) So, irrefutable.
2. I define what it is to be a first cause. By logical necessity, a first cause can have no restrictions as to what it can be. Has yet to be refuted.
3. There is one technical restriction to a first cause however. It cannot contradict itself. I cannot both be, and not be. I think that is a given, but I wanted to make sure that was also understood.

I would say if these are logically necessary, then the argument is sound. If something is not logically necessary, then it is not sound. You seem to state this is a problem but perhaps I'm not fully understanding what the issue is.

How am I breaking the law of excluded middle? LEM is defined as "In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20the%20law%20of,or%20its%20negation%20is%20true.&text=The%20principle%20should%20not%20be,is%20either%20true%20or%20false.

If it is logically necessary, then the proposition is true. Can you point out specifically where I have introduced something that can neither be true or false?

Now the logical possibility part comes into play when I talk about what is possible. If anything is possible for a first cause, then there you go. Anything is possible. You could have a dipolar God, a polar God, or a God that hates poles. =) The God that created the universe could be evil, it could be long dead, it could be neutral, it could be anything.

The only essential property of a God in the argument is that it has the power to create our universe. That is all. If it cannot, it is not a God. If it can, it is a God. Remove all theistic ideas, and focus simply on that as to what a God must be.

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop.

But what I do say at the end is that for every specific possible universe where the first cause is not a God, such as the big bang as the first cause of our universe, there are an infinite number of possible universes in which a different type of God could have come into the picture that created our specific universe. I use the "difference" purely in power and decision to create our universe exactly as it is.

I think you have a general enough understanding of the argument at this point, so I can now say where the flaw is, though I still leave you to figure out why its a flaw. It is NOT that there are an infinite number of possible Gods that could have created a specific universe without a God. It is my conclusion from this point that if we are to predict whether our universe was created by a God, or its first cause was not a God, that it is infinite to 1 that the cause was a God.

Its VERY tricky. A big hint again is in the little logic equation I gave you earlier of A=A, but A0 = B1 (in another universe).

But first, feel free to flesh out all of the points prior to this. I want to make sure you're satisfied that the prior points are logical. Once you do, try to tackle the last part. If you can't get it, its fine. It took me a LOT of time to figure out what was wrong with it. At that point, if you can't figure it out, I'll reveal the flaw.

Hello EdgyRoy! Thanks for taking a stab at it.

I like, and agree, with your changing the terms to fit what works for you. I'll go ahead and clarify "Existince" however. Everything that is, exists. Everything that is not, does not. I as a human can create a rubber ducky. The ducky exists, but so do I. The ducky is the created, but we both still exist. Does that work?

So lets now address a "first cause". At this point, we should not be thinking of a creator. We are simply looking at the logic of whether causality is infinitely regressive, or if there must be a first cause.

I conclude there must be a first cause. Read over the points again if you're unsure how I did it. Then I conclude that the necessary rule of being a first cause, is that there is no constraint on what a first cause has to be. I've tried to flesh this out in a few ways over the posts I reply to 3017amen on. This is probably the most important part of the argument to understand. If you think it is flawed, feel free to point it out. If not, only then can we consider a creator.

Because anything could be a first cause, this means that the big bang itself, could have been a first cause. A first cause does not have to have agency. However, because a first cause could be anything, it also COULD be something with agency.

At first, it seems like it could be a being with agency, or a first cause with no agency at 50%. Just a coin flip. But I started thinking about it more. What would a creator necessarily have to have?

It would need a minimum ability to create the universe as it exists. Of course, a being could be a first cause that also had an ability greater than the minimum. Imagine a being with 42,000,000 as one possible God that creates our universe as it. Then imagine a being with 42,000,001 capability that creates our universe as it is. Up to infinite possible types of God's with greater power, that could have created our universe as is.

If that's the case, then for every one specific universe (ours), there are an infinite number of possible first causes that were Gods that created our universe exactly how it exists today.

But this does mean that one God would be more constrained over the other. Remember, we are building this from the ground up to a God, not from a God down to the ground. Are the premises illogical? Do I make a logic leap somewhere where I shouldn't? Good luck, and have fun thinking about it!

"Theists and atheists agree there must be some ultimate explanation, some end to the infinite regress. But they disagree over which properties this 'ultimate being' must have". — Gnomon

The argument I am putting for is a logical proof that there must be a first cause. And due to the nature of what a first cause entails, the conclusion is that it could have been anything. Either a God, or a non God. You cannot conclude, "The first cause must be X" from this argument. You can only conclude a first cause is what must be, and that this first cause could be anything.

Atheists "disprove" your assertion of a First Cause for our Natural world, by asserting that automatic impersonal random Evolution itself could be a self-existent eternal Cause --- like gravity "it just is". — Gnomon

If we understand the arguments points then, this argument only backs what I'm saying. I believe the atheists are using this argument as a point to state there is no need for a God, and also to disprove the possibility of a God.

My argument would agree with atheists that yes, their's is one possibility. But it does not disprove the possibility of a God either. And I am not claiming a God could have been the first cause as in, "Well we don't know the start, so you know, maybe it could be." My statement is, "It is logically possible that a God exists from the conclusion that there is a first cause." No atheist can claim that a God is an illogical or impossible being at this point.

I was merely noting what you had already implied : that an ultimate First Cause would not "pop into existence", since it continually exists forever. — Gnomon

Its a bit of a semantics issue. Technically, if nothing existed prior to the first cause, there is no existence to pop into. We can imagine there being nothing, then being something, but prior to their being something, there was no one to observe the "nothing". That's a WHOLE can of beans for another topic, so I'll just say, "Yes" in the sense of it "appearing". But there is nothing to suggest that a first cause must continue to exist eternally after it has "appeared". There is nothing to say it could not exist eternally either. We cannot know either way through the premises of the argument.

The answer to a "why" question must be a reason or intention, not necessarily a "something" — Gnomon

BEING, per se, could be inert immobile existence, equivalent to nothingness. But "Creative BEING" would be able to use its inherent power of existence to cause other beings to exist. No one can deny that our existence implies the "power to be", and the sudden appearance of our world from who-knows-where is impossible without the prior Potential for existence. So I'm simply defining an eternal Law of Being that must logically cause & create all other laws, principles, and things in existence. — Gnomon

I like how you've defined being here. Very nice!

No. That is the understanding of Atheists who challenge Theists with "who created the creator?" — Gnomon

I wanted to assure you that we do not fall into the "Gods all the way down" argument. You are correct in assuming that when I mean first cause, I mean the first in the "chain". A being that can create a specific universe, but is not a first cause, is not a God according to this argument. Yes, it is possible that we could have beings that create beings that create sets, but the "specific universe" is what comes from the first cause. Whatever happens in that universe is irrelevant.

For Atheists, that might be true. But for my thesis, a multiplicity of gods is no better, no more powerful, than Creation by Random Accident. — Gnomon

In thinking on the possibilities of what a first cause must entail, I can see your possibility as one of many. But that is only within THIS argument, and not within your world view. I appreciate that you added your own world view to the discussion as much as you've addressed the topic. I think it comes from a place of great thought. I also appreciate the links and well informed replies!

I think you have a different definition of a God then I do, which is perfectly fine, and it seems nice. This argument here is more about a pure philosophical God, that is extremely limited in scope. Beyond meeting a minimum threshold of ability to create our specific universe, I cannot define a God in any other way from its morality, intentions, current existence, or any other attribute.

If you disagree with that or are uninterested in that, its perfectly fine. If though you are interested in taking it to its conclusions, does my assessment that if we look at our universe, there is only one possibility that its first cause was not a God, versus an infinite number of possibilities that the first cause was some type of God?

3. There is one technical restriction to a first cause however. It cannot contradict itself. I cannot both be, and not be. I think that is a given, but I wanted to make sure that was also understood.

I would say if these are logically necessary, then the argument is sound. If something is not logically necessary, then it is not sound. You seem to state this is a problem but perhaps I'm not fully understanding what the issue is. — Philosophim

The argument is sound but it lacks its existential meaning, like the infamous a priori ontological argument. Basically, you're saying: 'there exists at least one true proposition". While that's logically necessary, I can just as easily describe anything in that manner, but I can't explain the nature of its existence using a priori logic. There may exist at least one true proposition, but where did the proposition come from and how did it come into existence? What is its nature? ( In large part, those are Metaphysical questions.)

And so in your item 3 above, if you were to parse the attributes of a first cause, you would have to address not only cosmological concepts (just to name a few) such as: determinacy/indeterminacy in physics/nature, contingency (what supports/explains the super-turtle) in nature, timelessness and time dependent (temporal time v. eternity and the beginning of time/BB) but also Being and becoming, consciousness, etc..

LEM/bivalence would relate to a Dipolar/Metaphysical feature of existence and consciousness and subconsciousness working together in an illogical manner (driving a car while daydreaming and crashing/killing yourself--was it your consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car kind-of-questions). Which is what relates to a cosmological Dipolar Being/ God... .

Can you point out specifically where I have introduced something that can neither be true or false? — Philosophim

So, how can you explain a causational Being who presumably is logically necessary who has a consciousness? One of many questions would be, what are its attributes and what were the reasons for its existence? What was it doing prior to the BB? Since you introduced Being, who (what/where/how/why) caused and created existence; the burden is within your theory to provide answers to those questions (and more), using logic.

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop. — Philosophim

Not sure I'm following that...seems counterintuitive to your theory?

Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? Can you introduce a flaw I missed? — Philosophim

The most obvious flaw, broadly speaking, is that the argument is an exercise in creating information ex-nihilo, which is to say it operates on the assumption that stringing some mathematical operations together will somehow result in new information, which isn't actually possible.

There is nothing stopping us from supposing an infinity of "natural" causes to counter the infinity of gods.

A more technical criticism is that the initial dichotomy doesn't seem valid or includes a hidden premise:

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which all others follow. — Philosophim

What about the option that nothing has a cause?

There is also the issue that you seem to be flip-flopping on the definition of "cause" a bit. 2 clearly establishes cause as a "why" question, but 3 then sets up 3 "how" answers. And you then go back to a "why" question in 5. This masks the fact that 3 and 5 directly contradict each other. Either there are the three options of 3 or there is only in fact one option. Can't have it both ways.

Of course, a first cause does not have to be a God. Remember, I'm using the big bang as an easy starting point for comprehension. There may have been something that caused the big bang, maybe the little pop. — Philosophim

I did not write this clearly enough, my apologies. My example was to show that the first cause of our universe might have been the big bang, or might have been something else that inevitably lead to the big bang. The "little pop" was just a suggestion to give you a more concrete visual.

The argument is sound but it lacks its existential meaning, — 3017amen

I think it carries plenty of meaning. First, it concludes with certainty that our universe has a first cause. It then concludes a basic tenant of what a first cause must entail; that its being is not bound to anything necessary. A first cause can be anything. That is the logically concluded nature of its existence. Its not a "maybe it could be anything," its the fact that a first cause is not bound by any rules in its existence.

This means that it is actually logical to think that a God is a possibility. It is also logical that the universe formed without a God as well. It actually negates all other cosmological arguments for God, and all other arguments that it is not possible for a God to have created the universe. I would say that's not insignificant.

And so in your item 3 above, if you were to parse the attributes of a first cause, you would have to address cosmological concepts (just to name a few) such as: determinacy/indeterminacy in physics/nature, contingency (what supports/explains the super-turtle) in nature, timelessness and time dependent (temporal time v. eternity and the beginning of time/BB) not to mention Being and becoming, consciousness, etc.. — 3017amen

If you understand that a first cause is not bound to necessarily be anything, then none of the above are necessary to address. Well, perhaps we could dive into what the idea of a "being" is, but its still unimportant.

If a being is X (whatever we conclude after a long debate)
Then there are an infinite number of X that are possible that could have created our specific universe.

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there.

LEM/bivalence would relate to a Dipolar feature of existence and consciousness and subconsciousness working together in an illogical manner — 3017amen

I never said that this is something that had to be. I'm only talking about what is possible, when anything which does not contradict itself is possible. As long as your definition of such a being is not self-contradictory, it is possible. It does not mean it is necessary or certain, just simply possible.

So, how can you explain a causational Being who presumably is logically necessary who has a consciousness? One of many questions would be, what are its attributes and what were the reasons for its existence? What was it doing prior to the BB? Since you introduced Being, who (what/where/how/why) caused and created existence; the burden is within your theory to provide answers to those questions (and more), using logic. — 3017amen

1. The being is not logically necessary. I'm just saying its a logical possibility. This is important, because prior to this argument, the idea of of a God being possible has never been actually proven. If a first cause can be anything, then it is possible that the first cause of our universe is a God. That is all the argument says about this.

2. You cannot ask a question, "Why does it exist" if it is a first cause, and look to something else. "Why does it exist" implies there is prior causality to its existence. A first cause has no prior causality. Why does it exist? It simply is, there is no why to its existence, besides the fact that it exists. Not because its an opinion, but because this is logically the only thing which can be. As for its attributes, who knows? All we know is that it had the power to create our universe. We cannot know from this reasoning, anything more than that.

3. What was it doing prior to the big bang? Who knows? Its tertiary to the argument which is being made here. The argument is about possibilities, and what we can predict from those possibilities. It has not conclusion as to what the first cause actually is. That is why the argument is called, "The probability of God".

If you are asking these things of the theory, its not providing that. The only things that the theory is providing is:

There is a first cause to our universe.
There is no rule of what a first cause must be
We do not know what that first cause is, so we can imagine all of the possibilities, and see if we can figure anything out.
There is one possibility of our universe's first cause being a non being.
There are infinite possibilities of our universe's first cause being a being which has the power to create our specific universe.
Therefore if we are to think on the possibilities, it is reasonable to conclude that the first cause of our universe is a God, versus the one chance that the first cause was not a God, or being.

I've already mentioned the flaw is in the conclusion. I don't believe any of the points themselves are flawed, but there are some missing attributes or points in between that if added, means the conclusion cannot hold. That's the puzzle. Great conversation so far btw, I hope I'm explaining the perspective and consequences of a first cause clearly enough for your liking.

My example was to show that the first cause of our universe might have been the big bang, or might have been something else that inevitably lead to the big bang. The "little pop" was just a suggestion to give you a more concrete visual. — Philosophim

No apologies necessary, thank you. We're critiquing here. The universe, before the BB was supposedly in a state of entropy, accelerated expansion, space changes, and so on and so forth. In short, since you are stuck on a causational Being (which is fine by me), I would recommend you consider elements from the Anthropic Principle to incorporate into your theory.

think it carries plenty of meaning. First, it concludes with certainty that our universe has a first cause. It then concludes a basic tenant of what a first cause must entail; that its being is not bound to anything necessary. A first cause can be anything. That is the logically concluded nature of its existence. Its not a "maybe it could be anything," its the fact that a first cause is not bound by any rules in its existence. — Philosophim

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) you are basically saying that a Being known as God is the first cause. That's all you've said to describe that Being known as God, no?

If you understand that a first cause is not bound to necessarily be anything, then none of the above are necessary to address. Well, perhaps we could dive into what the idea of a "being" is, but its still unimportant. — Philosophim

If that were the case, then what reason is there to invoke God in the first place (no pun intended)? Are we not talking about meaning of life concerns here? Or are you simply discussing a priori kinds of thinking/logical necessary truth's? If it's the latter, what's the point of significance?

Again, you mentioned Being (ontology), I didn't.

I'll offer comments to your other replies momentarily...thank you.

Hello Echarmion, great contribution!

The most obvious flaw, broadly speaking, is that the argument is an exercise in creating information ex-nihilo, which is to say it operates on the assumption that stringing some mathematical operations together will somehow result in new information, which isn't actually possible. — Echarmion

I don't quite agree with this. What I'm trying to ascertain is what is logically possible, and impossible when thinking about two separate ideas. Finite, or infinite regress of causal events. The conclusion is that any time of causality will, by necessity, resolve to a finite causality.

Now perhaps logic doesn't apply to causality, could be. But we can't argue anything at that point. Assuming that logic can be applied to causality, this is the only logical conclusion which can be made. Now if I'm wrong on that, feel free to point out the error in the logic.

There is nothing stopping us from supposing an infinity of "natural" causes to counter the infinity of gods. — Echarmion

Close, VERY close. But can you put this in similar terms of the argument? Because in the argument I demonstrate there is 1 specific universe, and any alteration after that first cause would be a different specific universe.

So for example, imagine that the first cause of our universe is the big bang, no God. There are an infinite number of Gods that could have been a first cause that then created the big bang, and created a duplicate universe.

Now imagine that there is another possible universe with a slightly different big bang as a first cause, and your dominant hand is different. That is an entirely different specific universe. But for that specific universe, there would be an infinite number of possible Gods that could be the first cause, that created that big bang that lead to that universe.

This situation is not an equal comparison of infinity to infinity. Cantor proved that you could have greater infinity comparison called cardinality. We can simplify this easily though.

Take our universe, not any other. We can then realize there are an infinite possibilities of a concious being as a first cause creating our universe.

Now take any one of those Gods that created our specific universe. There is one of our specific universe, or a 1 to 1 ratio.

Basically the odds of a God creating our specific universe are an infinity of one-to-one ratios.

Again, you are VERY close to the flaw, but having a general feeling about it, versus being able to put it into logic that confirms it is where the rubber hits the road. I look forward to your reply, you might be the winner!

What about the option that nothing has a cause? — Echarmion

Because we know that's not an option. Causality is a necessary condition that results in a necessary outcome. A first cause is a condition that results in a necessary outcome, but the first cause does not have a prior necessary condition for its own outcome, its existence in this case.

Now if you can show that causality has not been proven to exist, feel free, but I'm taking the stance that causality is proven to exist.

I hope my definition of causality above also clears up any concerns you had about why and how.

Why means: This is seeking out a necessary precondition for this current existence, but we do not know how.
How means: This is the understood necessary precondition for this current existence, or the answer to the why.

So on point 3 when I state, "The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist."
There is no understood necessary precondition for why a first cause has to exist.
This can easily be answered with a why question. Why is there no necessary precondition on a first cause existing? It is because there can be no how. If there was, then it would not be a first cause, but there would exist some necessary precondition for the first causes existence.

Thus when I state on point 5, "Why is is all of causality infinite?", I am asking, "Is there a necessary precondition that entails all of causality must be infinite?"

So with this definition fleshed out more, I do not believe there is any contradiction. If you see one though, feel free to point it out!

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there. — Philosophim

Exactly my point. What is: "the rest". ??

never said that this is something that had to be. I'm only talking about what is possible, when anything which does not contradict itself is possible. As long as your definition of such a being is not self-contradictory, it is possible. It does not mean it is necessary or certain, just simply possible. — Philosophim

Sorry for the piecemeal, but that's not true. The conscious and subconscious mind violate rules of Bivalence/LEM. It suggests that you yourself are outside of a logical description from the catagories of human rational thought.. In essence you are illogical. Or, you can make the case whether you or God can transcend logic. Another reason you should explore the Anthropic Principle in your cosmological model.

No apologies necessary, thank you. We're critiquing here. — 3017amen

Cool beans then. =)

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) you are basically saying that a Being known as God is the first cause. That's all you've said to describe that Being known as God, no? — 3017amen

The only way I define a God is a first cause that has the minimum capability to design our specific universe. This is a possible first cause of our universe, not a necessary first cause of our universe. While yes, there is theory that there was something prior to the big bang, the specifics of what that is do not matter. The "big bang" is really just a place holder for "First cause that is not a being" or "First cause that is not a God". What is also important to note is that a first cause that is not a God, is ALSO not a necessary event, but one of many possibilities. I think the part that you might be missing is that is logically possible that a God is the creator of our universe, but it is also logically possible that there was no being that created our universe. That the "Big bang" could have been the first cause as well, (or whatever the first event of time was).

Or are you simply discussing a priori kinds of thinking/logical necessary truth's? If it's the latter, what's the point of significance? — 3017amen

Yes, you nailed it. This is what is going on here. This was done out of curiosity. I had heard the philosophical arguments for God, but found them lacking. On the other hand, atheists took their lack to mean that a God is something that is not possible. Because we can explain everything in terms of the laws as they are, it is simply irrational to discuss the idea of a God as a possibility.

I also found the definition of a God in these arguments lacking a simple baseline. I felt the problem with many of the cosmological arguments was that "God" had too much assumed prior to the discussion. A God in this argument is an extremely simple baseline to start off of.

Above all, I would like this argument to not be seen as an "attack" on theists or atheists. I like the truth, and truth should not have an agenda.

In the end, though my final conclusion has a flaw (still yet to be revealed!) what this argument does do is,

1. Put an end to the debate about infinite prior causality versus finite causality. Logically, there is a finite causality to our universe.
2. Proves the logical possibility of a God. This is different from a merely imagined God. No one can say, "A God is not possible". No, it is.
3. Changes the dynamic of the God/non-God discussion. I think atheists have denied the possibility of a God, and theists have denied the possibility that a first cause could not be a God, and it has been stuck this way for a very long time. I think they are both wrong. Both are possible, and discussions should go forward with this in mind.

That was my intention from the argument. There are of course many other consequences of this that I did not intend, but nevertheless are. An argument for logic should not be what we want, but for what is most logically sound.

a. The argument does remove the philosophical argument that a God must be good, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. It is not impossible that such a God could be the first cause, but that's only one of many possibilities for a God.
b. If you really delve deep into the idea of a first cause, you realize that it is entirely possible that a first cause happened that appeared to have a prior cause, but in fact, did not. I don't want to get into this now however, this is a major can of worms that deserves its own topic.
c. But if b is true, you may never be able to prove if there is a God, or not a God, only its possibility.

And that leads to my final (and flawed) conclusion! That for any one specific universe, while there is one possibility that its first cause is not a God, there are an infinite number of possibilities that its first cause was a God, due to how I defined a God. It sure sounds right by the points I laid out, but I'm definitely missing or neglecting something. Echarmion might be close in the ballpark if you want to read him.

There is only one thing that matters to the definition of a God, and that is that it is a being that has the power to create our specific universe. And of course, the rest that follows from there.
— Philosophim

Exactly my point. What is: "the rest". ?? — 3017amen

The rest of the argument that flows from there. After the establishment of the definition of a God, just continue the rest of the argument.

Sorry for the piecemeal, but that's not true. The conscious and subconscious mind violate rules of Bivalence/LEM. So in essence, you yourself are outside of a logical description from logic. In essence you are illogical. Or, you can make the case whether you or God can transcend logic. Another reason you should explore the Anthropic Principle in your cosmological model. — 3017amen

No worry about the piecemeal, thank you for bringing up anything you're thinking about on this. I am new to the idea of your conscious and unconscious violating the LEM principle. The conscious mind is, and the unconscious mind is to my knowledge. Are you saying they exist in some intermediate phase between is, and is not? If this is too complicated and distracts from the original argument, lets not delve too far into it though. For the purposes of the argument, I am assuming logic, and we'll just have to consider the argument within this logic. If you disagree with logic, that it can in fact be violated, then we can chalk that up as a new flaw I had not considered. But if you want to see the flaw within logic, we'll likely have to remove the idea that logic can be violated to find its end.

The being is not logically necessary. I'm just saying its a logical possibility. This is important, because prior to this argument, the idea of of a God being possible has never been actually proven. If a first cause can be anything, then it is possible that the first cause of our universe is a God. That is all the argument says about this. — Philosophim

Okay now you're changing from a logically necessary, causational Being, to a logically possible Being. Are you going to change your propositional model accordingly? Again I take no exceptions, but I think you need to rewrite your model that discusses that topic.

You cannot ask a question, "Why does it exist" if it is a first cause, and look to something else. "Why does it exist" implies there is prior causality to its existence. A first cause has no prior causality. Why does it exist? It simply is, there is no why to its existence, besides the fact that it exists. Not because its an opinion, but because this is logically the only thing which can be. As for its attributes, who knows? All we know is that it had the power to create our universe. We cannot know from this reasoning, anything more than that. — Philosophim

Are you telling me we cannot question anyone's theory that God is a first cause? That seems contradictory and/or paradoxical because if you didn't have a sense of wonderment, you wouldn't have posited a causational Being to begin with, correct?

Otherwise once again you're arguing logical necessity. You're basically saying: " there exists at least one true proposition". And so where did this proposition come from, and how does it exist? Is it a byproduct of human consciousness and language and if so, where did humans come from, etc. etc.. Logical necessity has no meaning and cannot uncover the true nature of existence.

There is a first cause to our universe.
There is no rule of what a first cause must be
We do not know what that first cause is, so we can imagine all of the possibilities, and see if we can figure anything out.
There is one possibility of our universe's first cause being a non being.
There are infinite possibilities of our universe's first cause being a being which has the power to create our specific universe. — Philosophim

Okay, no exceptions taken. To me, that's in the spirit of logical possibility. But your model needs to provide analogies. What makes it more possible than not? What from physics and metaphysics can provide clues in so-called support of your own model?

Okay now you're changing from a logically necessary, causational Being, to a logically possible Being. Are you going to change your propositional model accordingly? Again I take no exceptions, but I think you need to rewrite your model that discusses that topic. — 3017amen

I was quite certain that the argument was about possible first causes, and a God being one of them.
I don't believe I ever stated God as a necessary first cause. Can you point out in the argument where I mentioned a God was a necessary first cause? Or at least the point what lead you to believe I was? It very well means I need to emphasize or add examples to certain sections.

Are you telling me we cannot question anyone's theory that God is a first cause? That seems contradictory and/or paradoxical because if you didn't have a sense of wonderment, you wouldn't have posited a cuz a tional being to begin with, correct? — 3017amen

No, you could definitely question if what you are calling a God is a first cause. I didn't mean you couldn't ask the question, but that there is no answer to the question because a first cause has no prior conditions for being.

Under the definition of a God, a God is also a first cause. This is important, because we could imagine a God that creates a being that creates a universe, considering we're dealing in all possibilities here. We would not consider the secondary being a God. Only the first cause being would be considered a God under the definition put here.

Okay, no exceptions taken. To me, that's in the spirit of logical possibility. But your model needs to provide analogies. What makes it more possible than not? What from physics and metaphysics can provide clues in so-called support of your own model? — 3017amen

Great, we're reaching the end here then. It's probably been a while, but go and read points 10 through 14 again. That answers why it is more possible than not, and should give you the analogies as to why. The physics is that we can envision a being with the minimum capability to create something. We can then also envision a being with the minimum to create something, + just a little more than that minimum.
Since we know a first cause could be anything, this is within the realm of possibilities. And since there is only one possibility of a specific universe without a God in its entirety, versus the infinite number of possible Gods that could have made that one specific universe, we get the odds of my conclusion.

No, you could definitely question if what you are calling a God is a first cause. I didn't mean you couldn't ask the question, but that there is no answer to the question because a first cause has no prior conditions for being. — Philosophim

I hate to keep harping on this but that's precisely logical necessity. The reason for its existence is within itself. That doesn't prove anything. And so if there's no answer to your theory of a causational Being it becomes an ontological existential state of despair.

I would stay away from logical necessity if I were you, and perhaps replace it with synthetic statements about causation. Are you familiar with synthetic a priori knowledge?