Search Results
6/11/2025, 3:48:23 PM
>>17752648
>Why not?
Things are being actualized as we speak, meaning under your worldview an infinite amount of causes had to be traversed. Even if we grant an infinite amount of time for it to happen, then that just moves the problem to another domain. Eternal time as opposed to infinite causal chains. This introduces further problems for you like needing evidence of such a thing, and also an explanation of how we could have possibly traversed the eternity amount of elapsed time required to get here.
>Why?
To avoid the infinite regress of causes you need a foundation. The final cause causing the first again is just a restricted form of the infinite regress problem above solving nothing. Retrocausality does not remove the dependence on an infinite amount of things either. What you could do is reject causality altogether which is not something we observer (or predict) for future events. An alternative is to do it only for one event which is what the uncaused cause is.
>No, I can define 'Zoz' as an uncaused cause that has no other God-like properties, it only has that one property.
That would be a concession on your part so congrats. You can indeed have a different prime mover but your suggestion is nonsensical. This thing must have all the necessary internal states to launch the chain from eternity past. Why is this moment happening now ~13.8 billion years after the big bang as opposed to an eternity ago? Only an eternal immaterial will inside a single indivisible being can explain this, because no matter what mechanistic explanation you have this will only introduce further uncaused causes otherwise. You're right though that this does not automatically prove God just some of his properties.
>Why not?
Things are being actualized as we speak, meaning under your worldview an infinite amount of causes had to be traversed. Even if we grant an infinite amount of time for it to happen, then that just moves the problem to another domain. Eternal time as opposed to infinite causal chains. This introduces further problems for you like needing evidence of such a thing, and also an explanation of how we could have possibly traversed the eternity amount of elapsed time required to get here.
>Why?
To avoid the infinite regress of causes you need a foundation. The final cause causing the first again is just a restricted form of the infinite regress problem above solving nothing. Retrocausality does not remove the dependence on an infinite amount of things either. What you could do is reject causality altogether which is not something we observer (or predict) for future events. An alternative is to do it only for one event which is what the uncaused cause is.
>No, I can define 'Zoz' as an uncaused cause that has no other God-like properties, it only has that one property.
That would be a concession on your part so congrats. You can indeed have a different prime mover but your suggestion is nonsensical. This thing must have all the necessary internal states to launch the chain from eternity past. Why is this moment happening now ~13.8 billion years after the big bang as opposed to an eternity ago? Only an eternal immaterial will inside a single indivisible being can explain this, because no matter what mechanistic explanation you have this will only introduce further uncaused causes otherwise. You're right though that this does not automatically prove God just some of his properties.
Page 1