I've heard many times that, based on 'conceptual analysis', the First Cause must be sentient and have a will because " for a timeless cause producing a temporal effect requires an independent will otherwise a mechanical cause will always exist with its effect".

This seems to me to be an argument more based on the causality rather than Craig's normal reductive assertion of an immaterial mind being the only immaterial thing that could cause an effect as opposed to numbers.

So what are the arguments for an against this?

What is the problem with there being a "mechanical cause"? Not that I know what that or a "timeless cause" is. Sounds like white noise tbh.

I honestly don't know, that's why I asked

What does this even mean? Serious. I've read it over and over and it just makes my head hurt trying to understand.

Ya i can barely understand, but I made up my own understanding and I agree with you. Firstly the statement assumes causality (but so does science). And in that I don't really agree there has to be, or that there is, an initial 'independent' will.

Ok, I understand the statement now. I'm with uke on this one.

Still not sure I understand what we are talking about but i think the problem with a mechanical cause its it doesn't answer any question, it just cause the new question of where/when did the mechanical cause arise.

A timeless cause would be free from this kind of question.

And it still wouldn't solve the question.

When a first cause is stated, the obvious question is "what caused it?"

Just stating that it wasn't caused because it just always was and therefore didn't need to be caused isn't exactly satisfying.

Why not?

No it wouldn't solve it. "First" implies causality in a sense as well.

Because we are looking for something that separates us from our source.

That might be the first time someone has entirely agreed with me and started the post by saying "no."

I was watching a Lawrence Krauss debate and the theist the same thing. It just strikes me as odd because my apologist friends said it with pretty much the same wording so it struck me as coming from some place.

At 24:55

Does timeless equate in this context to non-linear time, ever-present time, or non-existent time?

In a timeless dimension cause and effect is the same as in a dimension of space/time?

Forgive me I am unfamiliar with some of the thinking in the OP.

Because it is just ignoring that the line of questioning implies an infinite regression.

"For a garage door opening requires a telekinetic apple otherwise a mechanical cause will always exist"

You're saying god can't exist without that causing an infinite regression?

That's not an obvious question.

The problem is throwing out the word God! You have to define it, and after u define God it becomes an illogical question.

'That which always was, the ever present somethingness' is the definition of God. Or that's what people are trying to say when they say God. So now listen to the question - What caused that which was ever presently there? Well that's an illogical question. God by definition is the ever present somethingness, if something's definition is 'alwaysness' then is doesn't make sense to ask what caused it.

I believe that this is a valid definition for 2 reasons, or better yet i will say that i believe in this definition because 2 things make more sense to me than their opposites;

#1 - It makes way more sense to me that there was always a tangible 'somethingness' than it would make sense to me that once upon a time there was ever present nothingness, and for no apparent reason Kaboom somethingness popped into being. that makes less sense to me than it's opposite.

#2 - super structured intellegence is ever existant. If u analyze every square inch of the entire universe, even down to a spec of dirt, it is swarming with precision & structured complexity (atoms, molecules obeying laws & patterns etc). It makes no sense to me that once upon a time there was this gazillion mile wide dust cloud of 'BLAH' and than for no apparent reason Kaboom it started swarming into cohesion & logic...

No it makes way more sense to me that super organization always was (than it's opposite), and it makes way more sense to me that an eternal sourse of 'Somethingness' always was (instead of eternal nothingness and than BAM...).

So i will just refer to it as the ever present source, or 'The Source.' This is what people mean when they say 'God.'

Now why do i believe that 'The Source', the eternal somethingness has a personality? Because let's just look at Earth for a second. Puny little Earth in the universe is the equivelency of a drop of water in the Pacific Ocean. If u look on just this tiny little spec called Earth there is a hierarchy of cognitive attributes. An ameba has more cognitive attributes & comprehends more then dirt, a dog understands more than a pig, a human comprehends more than a dog...

SO...just on this planet alone this eternal 'Source' has churned out effects (Earth, us). And these effects that are subordinate to 'The Source' has these higher cognitive abilities - the understanding of emotions, love, hate, ability to change one's mind, etc.

#3 - It makes no sense to me that our puny race on this puny planet could possibly have attributes that the ever existing Source lacks. How is that posible? How can that eternal cause that has churned out every effect in the universe possibly lack attributes that we have? No way, if anything the opposite makes more sense, the Source of somethingness has every attribute we have and more. It can love, hate, change it's mind etc (and do more, who the hell are we!) How's it make any sense that a mindless machine that can't understand human emotions can create beings that can? How's it make sense that subordinate effects called humans can have higher cognative attributes that the superior source lacks? It's above ALL!

Im pretty sure that no currently accepted theory about how things came to be, involves anything like your description of it. So maybe you need to look deeper into what the theories are actually saying.





Are you trying to say that created things cannot surpass their creator? If so, I disagree. children often do better at some things than their parents. Its also not beyond the bounds of possibility that humans create computers or artificial intelligence that is way beyond what processing power humans have.

And let us not forget that "better" is normative and not holistic. Two things can be better than one another at the same time; A calculator can be better than a bottle of water and a bottle of water can be better than a calculator.

Gravity. explains the 'cohesion', the term related to the beginning of the process that explains how dust becomes planets is 'accretion disc'. You'd have to elaborate on what you consider '& logic' to mean.

It makes no sense to me - Is an argument from Personal Incredulity, "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

I don't think it's a coincidence that a great deal of creationists fall back on this fallacy. You're unlikely to hear anyone with a more scientific outlook use something like that as a premise.

I'm not either really. It's something I've heard from a couple of apologists and in that I found in that Krauss video. I didn't find anything in own searches and thought someone had heard of it.

I can't tell if you're arguing for a specific deity, or something more generally Deistic.

But you agree that God is evil, at least in part?

I am arguing Deistically.

It is not a good comparison to compare the ever present somethingness to a child having attributes that a parent lacks. When speaking of an eternal 'Something' we are speaking about an all inclusive canvas that contains everything that is possible, the top layer. Because 'It' (the eternal canvas) can not whip up a creation that contains materials not found on the canvas, the canvas is all that there is. (Don't argue with this eternal canvas/source/God terminology of mine i'm simply stating the cumulative sum of all that always was, call it what u will)

When speaking of a man made computer that out performs man, man did not contain the materials and the laws of nature that created the computer, or it's processing ability. Man thru trial & error just rearranged materials that were all around him in order to piece together the computer. Man is not a 'Computer Source.' But every material & function inside the human body is WITHIN the matrials of the eternal canvas.

A parent can lack the IQ or athletic ability, etc of their child. The processes of offspring and how a human is born and how abilities are passed along are above a person's ability, our bodies have simply been pre-packaged with the capabilities. Pre-packaged inside of us from something at least one level above us. The eternal canvas contains all that is underneath it, nothing ever was above it in order to pre-package IT.

Think of all there is and all there ever was as a canvas of 1,000,000 colors (attributes, this analogy has limits). Nothing that is ever painted can contain the 1,000,001st color/attribute because it doesn't exist and never existed. Now let's say a human parent is a piece of art made from the eternal source containing 45 colors. But like a computer that has untapped abilities without software, these humans also have untapped colors that may never surface in their lives. But these humans were designed to give birth, and those colors can surface in the child's life.

This could certainly make sense, the human didn't create itself or decide how it would function. But how would it make sense that the canvas of 1,000,000 colors would not comprehend one of the 45 human colors?

In regards to the rebuttal that 'I understand it so i call it true' I am not claiming that it can't not be true because of my understanding. I'm just trying to say WHY i believe what i say is true. I'm just saying, as far as my brain is wired, i believe this is true because it makes more sense than the opposite. Surely every person's expert opinion is limited by their brain power. I'm just trying not to be a 'Because that's what i was taught' person

Oh forgot to answer 'Is God evil?' I will say not evil but WAY to hands off for my taste

And don't overrate the science either. Because keep in mind that scientists butt head and change theories, you can also become a 'Because that's what science told me' person. And remember it is the POPULAR science theories that rule